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

Filing 149

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

Doc. 149

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 149

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 1 of 2

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: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 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., AMERICA ONLINE, INC., NETSCAPE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, COMPUSERVE INTERACTIVE SERVICES, INC., ASK JEEVES, INC. and EARTHLINK, INC., Counter Defendant/ Third-Party Defendants.

Case No. C 03-5340-JF (RS) GOOGLE INC.'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND & WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC.'S MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING ON ITS MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY Date: Time: Dept: Judge:

4 Hon. Richard Seeborg November 26, 2003 May 15, 2007

Date Comp. Filed: Trial Date:

377196.01

GOOGLE'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND'S MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING ON ITS MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (RS) Dockets.Justia.com

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 149

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 2 of 2

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

Google opposes American Blind's motion to shorten time on its motion to compel for the same reason this Court has previously denied a similar motion in this litigation. American Blind seeks to shorten time because of the August 26, 2006 discovery cut-off, which is forty days away. Local Rule 26-2 states that motions to compel fact discovery can be filed as late as seven days after the discovery cut-off. There is therefore no reason why this motion cannot be heard as a normally noticed motion. Roughly one month ago, this Court denied a very similar motion to shorten time on a motion to compel. At the time, the discovery cut-off was June 26, 2006. On June 8, 2006, Google filed a motion to shorten time on its motion to compel American Blind to (1) produce documents, (2) produce an affidavit detailing its document collection efforts, and (3) schedule depositions. On June 12, 2006, this Court ruled: The basis of the request for shortened time is the pending discovery cut-off. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 26-2, however, motions to compel as to outstanding discovery requests are timely if filed up to seven days after the discovery cut-off. If the underlying motion remains necessary, Plaintiff shall re-notice it pursuant to the ordinary timing rules. Order Denying Motion for Order Shortening Time at 1. American Blind now cites the very same basis for shortening time that this Court has already rejected. American Blind should therefore be required to follow the normal schedule for noticed motions.

Dated: July 17, 2006

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP

By: /s/ Ajay S. Krishnan _________________________ AJAY S. KRISHNAN Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter Defendant GOOGLE INC.

1
377196.01

GOOGLE'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND'S MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING ON ITS MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (RS)