Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.

Filing 107

Declaration of Ajay Krishnan in Support of 106 MOTION to Shorten Time on Google's Motion to Compel filed byGoogle Inc., Google Inc.. (Related document(s)106) (Krishnan, Ajay) (Filed on 6/8/2006)

Download PDF
Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. Doc. 107 Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 107 Filed 06/08/2006 Page 1 of 3 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 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP MICHAEL H. PAGE - #154913 MARK A. LEMLEY - #155830 KLAUS H. HAMM - #224905 AJAY S. KRISHNAN - #222476 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter Defendant GOOGLE INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN BLIND & WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a decoratetoday.com, Inc., and DOES 1100, inclusive, Defendants. AMERICAN BLIND & WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a decoratetoday.com, Inc., Counter Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., Counter Defendant. Case No. C 03-5340-JF (EAI) DECLARATION OF AJAY S. KRISHNAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COUNTERPLAINTIFF ABWF TO (1) PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, (2) PRODUCE AN AFFIDAVIT DETAILING ABWF'S DOCUMENT COLLECTION EFFORTS, AND (3) SCHEDULE DEPOSITIONS Courtroom: 4 Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg 374761.01 DECLARATION OF AJAY S. KRISHNAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COUNTER-PLAINTIFF ABWF TO (1) PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, (2) PRODUCE AN AFFIDAVIT DETAILING ABWF'S DOCUMENT COLLECTION EFFORTS, AND (3) SCHEDULE DEPOSITIONS CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (EAI) Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 107 Filed 06/08/2006 Page 2 of 3 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 I, Ajay S. Krishnan, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before this Court and an associate at the law firm of Keker & Van Nest LLP in San Francisco. I represent plaintiff and counter-defendant Google Inc. ("Google") in the above-captioned litigation. I have knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called to testify as a witness thereto, could do so competently under oath. Description of Motion to Compel Production 2. Plaintiff and counter-defendant Google Inc.'s ("Google") motion (the "motion to compel") filed herewith seeks to compel counter-plaintiff American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. ("ABWF") to (1) produce documents covered by Google's first set of document requests, (2) produce an affidavit detailing ABWF's document collection efforts, and (3) schedule the depositions that Google has noticed. Reasons for the Requested Shortening of Time and Prejudice That Would Occur If the Court Did Not Change Time 3. Hearing the motion to compel on shortened time is justified because Google must be able to complete its fact discovery before the discovery cut-off. ABWF has consistently delayed producing documents to Google and scheduling depositions that Google has noticed. As a result of that delay, Google is now in danger of not being able to complete its fact discovery before the discovery cut-off. Because ABWF caused this delay, Google should not be forced to suffer its consequences. 4. The cut-off for fact discovery in this case is June 27, 2006. Civil L. R. 262 states that a discovery cut-off is the date "by which all depositions must be concluded." Google has not yet taken any depositions in this case because ABWF has not made its deponents available. Google first noticed a 30(b)(6) deposition of ABWF on February 15, 2006. As explained in detail in the accompanying motion to compel, ABWF has consistently been responsible for canceling or postponing that deposition. Although Google has now noticed several depositions, ABWF claims that it currently cannot schedule any of them. ABWF cites a change in management as the reason why it cannot currently schedule depositions. 1 DECLARATION OF AJAY S. KRISHNAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COUNTER-PLAINTIFF ABWF TO (1) PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, (2) PRODUCE AN AFFIDAVIT DETAILING ABWF'S DOCUMENT COLLECTION EFFORTS, AND (3) SCHEDULE DEPOSITIONS CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (EAI) 374761.01 Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 107 Filed 06/08/2006 Page 3 of 3 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 4. Additionally, ABWF has consistently delayed producing documents in response to document requests issued by Google. These delays are documented in detail in the motion to compel. Google began writing letters requesting these documents in March 2006. ABWF has promised to produce these documents before, but has failed to keep its promise. Given this track record, Google cannot be sure that ABWF will produce all of these documents before Google's depositions. Google requires these documents as soon as possible so as to be able to prepare for its depositions (which, as discussed above, are not yet scheduled). 5. Failing to provide for an expedited hearing would allow ABWF's delay to unfairly and severely prejudice Google. Google's Efforts to Obtain a Stipulation to Change Time 6. I wrote a letter to counsel for ABWF on June 7, 2006, requesting a stipulation on this motion to shorten time. ABWF responded that it would oppose this motion. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed June 8, 2006, at San Francisco, California. ________/s/ Ajay S. Krishnan_____________ AJAY S. KRISHNAN 2 DECLARATION OF AJAY S. KRISHNAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COUNTER-PLAINTIFF ABWF TO (1) PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, (2) PRODUCE AN AFFIDAVIT DETAILING ABWF'S DOCUMENT COLLECTION EFFORTS, AND (3) SCHEDULE DEPOSITIONS CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (EAI) 374761.01

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?