Netlist, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 52

MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document re: Document No. 51 filed by Netlist, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Steven R. Hansen, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hansen, Steven) (Filed on 8/19/2010)

Download PDF
1 PRUETZ LAW GROUP LLP Adrian M. Pruetz (Bar No. CA 118215/ampruetz@pruetzlaw.com) 2 Erica J. Pruetz (Bar No. CA 227712/ejpruetz@pruetzlaw.com) 200 N. Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1525 3 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 765-7650 4 Facsimile: (310) 765-7641 5 LEE TRAN & LIANG APLC Enoch H. Liang (Bar No. CA 212324/ehl@ltlcounsel.com) 6 Steven R. Hansen (Bar No. CA 198401/srh@ltlcounsel.com) Edward S. Quon (Bar No. 214197/eq@ltlcounsel.com) 7 601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 4025 Los Angeles, CA 90017 8 Telephone: (213) 612-3737 Facsimile: (213) 612-3773 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 NETLIST, INC. 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION NETLIST, INC., Plaintiff, vs. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant. CASE NO. C-09-05718 SBA [Related to CASE NO C-08-04144 SBA.] ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED JOINT LETTER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE 1 Plaintiff Netlist Inc. ("Netlist") hereby requests that the Letter from Plaintiff and 2 Defendant (Joint) re: Discovery Dispute (Document No. 51) (hereinafter the "Joint Letter"), filed 3 by Netlist on August 19, 2010 be removed from the CM/ECF system and case file. 4 The parties have engaged in an ongoing discovery dispute regarding Google's Responses 5 and Objections to Netlist's Requests for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Requests for 6 Production. After several rounds of "meet and confer" attempts, Netlist decided that judicial 7 intervention would be necessary to resolve the dispute and the parties initiated the process to 8 draft a joint letter to Magistrate Judge Spero pursuant to Paragraph B.8 of Judge Spero's 9 Standing Order. Declaration of Steven R. Hansen ("Hansen Decl.) ¶ 2. 10 On August 17, 2010, Netlist provided its portion of the Joint letter to Google's counsel, 11 containing citations to "Exhibit B", Google's Second Amended Responses and Objections to 12 Netlist's First Set of Interrogatories. Google's counsel provided the final draft of the Joint Letter 13 to Netlist's counsel on August 18, 2010 and authorized Netlist to file the Joint Letter. On August 14 18, 2010 Netlist's counsel filed the Joint Letter. Hansen Decl. ¶ 3. 15 The Joint Letter inadvertently contained information purportedly designated as 16 "Confidential-Attorney's Eyes Only" by Google pursuant to the parties' Stipulated Protective 17 Order entered on July 6, 2010 (Document No. 47). On August 19, 2010, Google's counsel met 18 and conferred with Netlist's counsel and requested that, because Netlist initiated the e-filing on 19 the CM/ECF system, Netlist take steps to remove the document from the record. Hansen Decl. ¶ 20 4. 21 Google contends that "Exhibit "B" to the Joint Letter was designated "Confidential- 22 Attorney's Eyes Only". The "Confidential-Attorney's Eyes Only" label appears in 10 point font 23 in the footer of the amended responses only (not Google's original responses) ­ and was 24 inadvertently overlooked. Hansen Decl. ¶ 5. 25 For the foregoing reasons, Netlist respectfully requests that the Joint Letter be removed 26 from the CM/ECF system and case file so that the Joint Letter may be re-filed without the 27 "Confidential-Attorney's Eyes Only" information. 28 -1MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT Dated: August 19, 2010 LEE TRAN & LIANG, APLC Steven R. Hansen Edward S. Quon By: /s/ Steven R. Hansen Steven R. Hansen Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant NETLIST, INC.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?