Be In, Inc. v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 81

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Joint Statement #2 and Exhibit B Thereto filed by GOOGLE UK LTD., Google Inc., YouTube, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Riana S. Pfefferkorn in Support of Motion to Seal, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit A to Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit A to Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit B to Declaration, # 6 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit B to Declaration, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit A to Joint Statement (Exh. A to Declaration))(Bal, Colleen) (Filed on 10/11/2013)

EXHIBIT B
to Pfefferkorn Declaration ISO Motion to Seal
REDACTED
Version of Document Sought To Be Sealed

EXHIBIT B
PUBLIC VERSION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

CHARLES S. BARQUIST (BAR NO. 133785)
[e-mail]
WENDY J. RAY (BAR NO. 226269)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 6000
Los Angeles, California 90017-3543
Telephone:
213.892.5200
Facsimile:
213.892.5454
KENNETH A. KUWAYTI (BAR NO. 145384)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304-1018
Telephone:
650.813.5600
Facsimile:
650.494.0792
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BE IN INC.

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN JOSE DIVISION

15
16

BE IN INC., a New York Corporation,
Plaintiff,

17
18
19
20
21

v.
GOOGLE INC., a California corporation;
YOUTUBE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and GOOGLE UK LTD., a private
limited company registered in England and
Wales,

Case No.

5:12-CV-03373-LHK

PLAINTIFF BE IN INC.’S
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE
INC.’S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
(DESIGNATED INLINE UNDER
PROTECTIVE ORDER)
The Honorable Lucy H. Koh

Defendants.

22
23
24

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

Defendant Google Inc.

25

RESPONDING PARTY:

Plaintiff Be In Inc.

26

SET NUMBER:

One (Nos. 1-16)

27
28
BE IN INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-03373-LHK
la-1219095

1
2
3

6.

Be In objects to the Interrogatories as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the

extent they are not limited to a specific and relevant time period and subject matter.
7.

Be In objects to the Interrogatories, including the Definitions and Instructions, to

4

the extent they purport to impose obligations on Be In beyond those required or authorized by the

5

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules and standing orders of this Court.

6

8.

Be In objects to each and every one of Google’s purported “Definitions” to the

7

extent that they require words to be construed in any manner other than by their plain and

8

ordinary meaning. To the extent that Be In adopts or uses any term or phrase defined by Google,

9

Be In does so solely for convenience in responding to these Interrogatories. Be In does not accept

10
11

or concede that any of the terms or definitions is appropriate, descriptive, or accurate.
9.

Be In objects to the definitions of “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” and

12

“PROPOSED DEFENDANTS” on the ground that Be In filed its Second Amended Complaint on

13

June 10, 2013 (D.I. 59), naming as actual defendants Google Inc., Google UK Ltd., and

14

YouTube, LLC. Be In also objects to the extent Defendants refer to portions of the Second

15

Amended Complaint that do not exist and/or were renumbered in the Second Amended

16

Complaint as filed.

17
18
19

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
IDENTIFY WITH PRECISION AND SPECIFICITY EACH AND EVERY ALLEGED

20

TRADE SECRET that PLAINTIFF contends GOOGLE unlawfully acquired, used, or disclosed.

21

(“IDENTIFY WITH PRECISION AND SPECIFICITY EACH AND EVERY ALLEGED

22

TRADE SECRET” as used herein means to provide a specific description of each such alleged

23

trade secret, on an individual basis for each such alleged trade secret, in such a manner that the

24

exact identity, scope, boundaries, constitutive elements, and content of each such alleged trade

25

secret are fully disclosed in writing, in contrast to an agglomerated set of conclusory phrases that

26

does not separately list and describe each such alleged trade secret, in contrast to a mere list of

27
28

2
BE IN INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-03373-LHK

la-1219095

1

documents or file names, and with precision above that required by California Code of Civil

2

Procedure Section 2019.210.)

3

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

4
5

[This response is designated Confidential]
In addition to the General Objections, Be In objects that Interrogatory No. 1 is compound,

6

consisting of as many as five subparts, and overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it purports

7

to require Be In to provide specificity beyond that which is required by the Federal Rules of Civil

8

Procedure. Be In further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information that is

9

privileged or protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product

10

doctrine, or any other statutory or common law privilege or protection. In addition, Be In objects

11

to the interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in the sole possession of Defendants.

12

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Be In responds as follows, based on information

13

presently available to Be In:

14
15
16

The trade secrets that Be In contends Defendants have unlawfully acquired, used, and
disclosed are:
1.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

2.

28

3
BE IN INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-03373-LHK

la-1219095

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

3.

9

on May 13, 2011.

10

The confidential eight-page strategic business plan disclosed to Richard Robinson

Discovery has just commenced, and Defendants have refused to provide any substantive

11

response to Be In’s discovery requests. Much of the information concerning Defendants’ use,

12

disclosure and acquisition of Be In’s trade secrets is in the sole possession of Defendants. Be In

13

may supplement and amend its response should discovery from Defendants reveal additional

14

details on the subject matter of this interrogatory.

15

AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

16
17

[This response is designated Confidential]
Be in incorporates its General Objections and the specific objections raised in its original

18

response. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Be In supplements its response as

19

follows.

20
21
22
23
24

In addition to the trade secrets identified above, the trade secrets that Be In contends
Defendants have unlawfully acquired, used, and disclosed include:
3.

Be In’s overall strategic business plan as disclosed to Richard Robinson on

May 13, 2011 in an eight-page confidential document.
4.

25
26

.
5.

27
28

4
BE IN INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-03373-LHK

la-1219095

1

6.

2
3
4
5

7.

6
7

Be In reserves the right to supplement this response as necessary.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
BE IN INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-03373-LHK

la-1219095

1

Dated: October 1, 2013

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

2
3

By: /s/ Charles S. Barquist
CHARLES S. BARQUIST

4

Attorneys for Plaintiff
BE IN INC.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

15
BE IN INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-03373-LHK

la-1219095

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I declare that I am employed with the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, whose address
is 707 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, California, 90017. I am not a party to the within cause, and I
am over the age of eighteen years.

3
4

I further declare that on October 1, 2013, I served a copy of:

5

PLAINTIFF BE IN INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES (DESIGNATED INLINE UNDER
PROTECTIVE ORDER)

6
7
8
9

[Fed.
by electronically
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICEthroughRule Civ. Proc. rule 5(b)] electronic mail
mailing a true and correct copy
Morrison & Foerster 's
LLP

system to the e-mail address(es) set forth below, or as stated on the attached service
list per agreement in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 5(b).

10

Colleen Bal [e-mail]
Charles Tait Graves [e-mail]
Riana S. Pfefferkorn [e-mail]
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
One Market Plaza
Spear Tower, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
T: [phone] | F: [phone]

11
12
13
14
15
16

Attorneys for Defendants Google Inc.,
YouTube, LLC, and Google UK Ltd.

17
18
19

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Los Angeles, California, this 1st day of October, 2013.

20
21
22

Rosa L. Beltran
(typed)

23

/s/
(signature)

24
25
26
27
28

16
BE IN INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-03373-LHK

la-1219095