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/ 2 Erica J. Pruetz (Bar No. CA 227712/ 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/ 6 Steven R. Hansen (Bar No. CA 198401/ Edward S. Quon (Bar No. 214197/ 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 ________________________________________________________________________ vs. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant. NETLIST, INC., Plaintiff, CASE NO. C-09-05718 SBA [Related to CASE NO C-08-04144 SBA.] DECLARATION OF STEVEN R. HANSEN IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED JOINT LETTER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION DECLARATION OF STEVEN R. HANSEN ISO MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT 1 I, Steven R. Hansen, declare as follows: 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 -1DECLARATION OF STEVEN R. HANSEN ISO MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT 1. I am an attorney admitted to practice law in the states of California and Michigan and before this Court. I am of counsel to Lee Tran & Liang APLC, counsel for Plaintiff Netlist, Inc. ("Netlist") in this action. I have personal first-hand knowledge of the matters set forth herein, and if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto. 2. The parties have engaged in an ongoing discovery dispute regarding Google's Responses and Objections to Netlist's Requests for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Requests for Production. After several rounds of "meet and confer" attempts, Netlist decided that judicial intervention would be necessary to resolve the dispute and the parties initiated the process to draft a joint letter to Magistrate Judge Spero pursuant to Paragraph B.8 of Judge Spero's Standing Order. 3. On August 17, 2010, Netlist provided its portion of the Joint letter to Google's counsel, containing citations to "Exhibit B", Google's Second Amended Responses and Objections to Netlist's First Set of Interrogatories. Google's counsel provided the final draft of the Joint Letter to Netlist's counsel on August 18, 2010 and authorized Netlist to file the Joint Letter. On August 18, 2010 my office filed the finalized version as "Letter from Plaintiff and Defendant (Joint) re: Discovery Dispute" (Document No. 51) (hereinafter the "Joint Letter"). 4. The Joint Letter inadvertently contained information purportedly designated as "Confidential-Attorney's Eyes Only" by Google pursuant to the parties' Stipulated Protective Order entered on July 6, 2010 (Document No. 47). On August 19, 2010, Google's counsel met and conferred with Netlist's counsel and requested that, because Netlist initiated the e-filing on the CM/ECF system, Netlist take steps to remove the document from the record. 5. Google contends that "Exhibit "B" to the Joint Letter was designated "Confidential-Attorney's Eyes Only". The "Confidential-Attorney's Eyes Only" label appears in 10 point font in the footer of the amended responses only (not Google's original responses) and was inadvertently overlooked. 1 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the 2 foregoing is true and correct. Executed this the 19th day of August 2010, at Waterford, 3 Michigan. 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 -2DECLARATION OF STEVEN R. HANSEN ISO MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT /s/Steven R. Hansen Steven R. Hansen

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?