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

Filing 162

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

Doc. 162

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 162

Filed 08/16/2006

Page 1 of 14

1 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP MICHAEL H. PAGE - #154913

2 MARA. LEMLEY - #155830
KLAUS H. HAMM - #224905 3 AJAY S. KRSHNAN - #222476 710 Sansome Street
4 San Francisco, CA 94111- 1 704

Telephone: [phone]
5 Facsimile: [phone]
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter Defendant

GOOGLE INC.
7
8

UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. C 03-5340-JF (RS)

9

12 v.
15

1 1 Plaintiff,
FACTORY, INC., a

10 GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation,

13 AMERICAN BLIN & WALLPAPER
Delaware corporation
14 d//a decoratetoday.com, Inc., and DOES I100, inclusive,

GOOGLE INC.'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND AND WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY TIMELY SERVED GIVEN THE CURRNT CUTOFF DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2006
Date: Time: Dept: Judge:
September 6, 2006

Defendants.
16

9:30 am
4

AMERICAN BLIN & W ALLP APER 17 FACTORY, INC., a Delaware corporation
d//a decoratetoday.com, Inc.,

Hon. Richard Seeborg

Date Compo Filed: November 26, 2003

18

Counter Plaintiff,
19

Trial Date: May 15,2007

v.

20

GOOGLE INC., AMERICA ONLIN, INC.,
21 NETS

CAPE COMMUCATIONS

CORPORATION, COMPUSERVE 22 INTERACTIVE SERVICES, INC., ASK JEEVES, INC. and EAR THUNK, INC.,
23

24
25

Counter Defendant/ Third-Partv Defendants.

26 27
28

REDACTED VERSION

378949.01

GOOGLE INC.'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND AND WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC. 'S MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY TIMELY SERVED GIVEN THE CURNT CUTOFF DATE OF AUGUST 26,2006 CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (RS) Dockets.Justia.com

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 162

Filed 08/16/2006

Page 2 of 14

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa2:e
i.
II.

2
3

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

4
5

BACKGROUN .................................................................................................................2

A. Except for a limited extension to complete discovery "already in the
pipeline," the fact discovery cut-off

6 7
8

was June 27, 2006. .........................................2

B. American Blind's attempts to seek discovery after the discovery cutoff.............................................................................................................................3
III.

ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................4

9

A. American Blind has not complied with the Cour's order requiring it to
meet and confer and seek leave from the Court before serving discovery. ..........................................................................................;...................... 5

10
11

B. American Blind has not shown good cause for its late-served
discovery. ...... ~.................................... ....................................................................... 6
1. American Blind has not shown good cause for noticing the

12
13

depositions of Google's presidents after the discovery cut-off. ..................7
2. American Blind has not shown good cause for why it could not

14
15

have served its RF As earlier. .....................................................................10
3. American Blind's additional deposition notices are improper. .................11
16

IV.
17
18 19

CONCLUSION .. .......... ...... ............ ........... ...... ....... ..... ........... .... .... ...................... ........ .... ..11

20
21

22
23

24
25

26 27 28
1
GO

378949.01

OGLE INC.'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND AND WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY TIMELY SERVED GIVEN THE CURNT CUTOFF DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2006 CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (RS)

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 162

Filed 08/16/2006

Page 3 of 14

2FEDERA CASES s) Pa2:e( 3
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
4 Baine v. General Motors Corp.,

141 F .R.D. 332.................................. ...... ................... ................................................. ......... ....1 0
5

Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Primary Indus. Corp., 6 1993 WL 364471, 1 ..... ............. ................ ........ ...................... ........ ........ ........ ............. ..............9
7 Folwell v. Hernandez,

210 F .R.D. 169.........................................................................................................................1 0
8

Lewellng v. Farmers Insurance o/Columbus, Inc.,
9 879 F .2d 212 ................................. ..... ....... ........ ............. .... ........... ............ ........ ...... ............ .....10

10 Miler v. International Business Machines,
2006 WL 1141090 ................. ...... .......... ................ .... ............. .......... ........... ........... ......... ..... .5, 6
11
Milt's Flying Service, Inc. v. A V Finance, Inc.,

12 2002 WL 31975066, at 3 ............... .... ..................... ........... ..... ........ ........ ........ ............. ..............6
13 Mulvey v. Chrysler Corp., 106 F .R.D. 364............... .............. ...................... ...... ........ ....................... .... ................ .............10
14

15 2006 WL 1141265, 1 .............................................................................................5, 7, 9, 10, 11
16 17
18

Padgett v. City 0/ Monte Sereno,

19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26
27 28
11

378949.01

GOOGLE INC.'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND AND WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC. 'S MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY TIMELY SERVED GIVEN THE CURRNT CUTOFF DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2006 CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (RS)

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 162

Filed 08/16/2006

Page 4 of 14

1

I.

INTRODUCTION

2 Two months ago, on the eve of an already extended fact discovery cutoff, American

3 Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. ("American Blind") came before Judge Fogel to request yet
4 another extension in this three year old case. The reason, American Blind averred, was that a

5 management change at the company prevented it from being able to timely respond to discovery

6 Google had served more than a year earlier. American Blind-which at the time had noticed
7 only a single Rule 30(b)(6) deposition in the entire life of

the case-made no claim that the

8 recent management changes had interfered in its outside counsel's ability to take discovery, only
9 to respond to pending discovery.

10 Google responded that it recognized that American Blind's failure to respond to pending
11 discovery or produce any deposition witnesses made an extension for that long-pending
12 discovery a/ail accompli. Google opposed, however, a general extension in which American

13 Blind could propound new discovery-discovery that it could and should have conducted long
14 ago. Judge Fogel ruled in Google's favor, in the most unambiguous terms:

16 not be reopened for new discovery. . . . .
new discovery.
18

15 Mr. Page: We don't object to extending the time to handle the discovery that has been held up by the ownership change. Our concern is that the schedule should

17 The Cour: The point is to allow the parties to complete discovery, not to do

19 That hearng occured on Friday, June 23. Notwithstanding Judge Fogel's clear directive,

20 however, American Blind on Monday, June 26-with no effort to either meet and confer or seek
21 leave of

Court-served purorted deposition notices for Google's two founders, Lar Page and

22 Sergey Brin. Putting aside the obvious harassment value of choosing two of the busiest and most
23 prominent executives in America as their first individual deponents, those notices clearly violate

24 both the June 27 discovery cut-off and Judge Fogel's express order. In the ensuing weeks,
25 American Blind proceeded to notice seven additional depositions, all in violation ofthose orders.
26 The fact discovery cut-off

in this case was June 27, and American Blind can show no

27 good cause for relief from that cut-off for discovery it could have taken any time in the past 16
28
1

378949.01

GOOGLE INC.'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND AND WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY TIMELY SERVED GIVEN THE CURNT CUTOFF DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2006 CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (RS)

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 162

Filed 08/16/2006

Page 5 of 14

1 months. Since Civil Local Rule 26-2 states that "( d)iscovery requests that call for responses or
2 depositions after the applicable cut-off are not enforceable, except by order of

the Court for good

3 cause shown," this discovery was not timely served, and the Cour should deny this motion.

4

II.
fact discovery cut-off

BACKGROUND

5 A.
6

Except for a limited extension to complete discovery "already in the pipeline," the
was June 27, 2006.

7 This case is nearly three years old. Google filed its complaint seeking declaratory relief

8 on November 26,2003.1 On June 21, 2004, the Cour stayed discovery.2 The stay lifted on

9 April 20, 2005. At a May 13, 2005 case management conference, the Cour set a February 27,
10 2006 fact discovery cut-off.3 On Februar 3,2006, over Google's objection, American Blind

11 requested a six-month extension of all case deadlines and the Cour extended the schedule by
12 four months.4 That extension pushed the close of

fact discovery to June 27, 2006.

13 On June 9, 2006, with fact discovery set to close in "a mere two weeks," American Blind
14 fied a motion seeking to extend the case deadlines an additional 90 days.5 Google opposed the
15 request. After full briefing and a June 23,2006 hearng, Judge Fogel extended the schedule for

16 60 days so the paries could complete discovery already served. At the hearing he stated: "The
17 point is to allow the parties to complete discovery, not to do new discovery. . . . So the blanet
18 order is simply the time to complete discovery that's already underway, 30(b)(6) depositions,
19 other depositions(,) document discovery. If

you need another two months, I understand."ó The

20 Cour's written order that issued the same day likewise stated that "the extension of case
2 1 management dates is intended only to allow the parties to complete discovery that is within the

22
23

24
25

Non-Infrngement. 2 Stipulation and Order Setting Hearing on Motion to Dismiss and Extending Time for Case Management Conference. 3 Amended Civil Minute Order re May 13, 2005 Further Case Management Conference. 4 Civil Minutes re February 3,2006 Further Case Management Conference.
5 American Blind & Wallpaper (sic), Inc.'s Motion To Amend And Extend Case Management
Order Dates at 3.
Ó Declaration of

1 Complaint For Declaratory Judgment of

26

27
28

Klaus H. Hamm, fied herewith ("Hamm DecL."), Ex. A (June 23 Tr.) at 3 (emphasis added).
2
GOOGLE INc. 'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND AND W ALLP APER FACTORY, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY TIMELY SERVED GIVEN THE CURNT CUTOFF DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2006 CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (RS)

378949.01

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 162

Filed 08/16/2006

Page 6 of 14

1 previously established scope of discovery.

,,7

2 Consistent with the Civil Local Rules' requirement regarding discovery after the cut-off,
3 Judge Fogel stated that "if

there is something that comes up in completing the pending discovery

4 that leads either party to think that there's something further they need to do, then you should go

5 to Magistrate Seeborg . . . If you want to initiate something that's not already in the pipeline,
6 then you need to go to the magistrate judge and show good cause."g The written order similarly
7 stated that if "a party believes that additional discovery is necessar, the paries should attempt to

8 resolve the matter between themselves. However, if an agreement canot be reached, permission
9 to conduct additional discovery shall be sought from Magistrate Judge Seeborg.,,9

10 B.

American Blind's attempts to seek discovery after the discovery cut-off.

1 1 The next day business after the Cour prohibited American Blind from serving additional
12 discovery, American Blind served two deposition notices. The "Notice of Deposition of

Lar

13 Page" set an August 8, 2006 deposition date and the "Notice of

14 an August 10,2006 deposition date.

Deposition for Sergey Brin" set 10 Two days later, American Blind served by fax "American
Requests For Admission To Google Inc."
Civil Procedure 6(e) and 36(a), Google's deadline for

15 Blind and Wallpaper Factory Inc.'s First Set of

16 ("RFAs").ll Under Federal Rules of

17 responding to the RF As was July 31, 2006.

18 When Google pointed out that the deposition notices and RFAs violated Judge Fogel's
19 June 23,2006 Order, American Blind took the following two positions: (1) that "Judge Fogel's
20 June 23rd order merely extended all deadlines for an additional 60 days and does not provide any

21 explicit limitations on depositions or other discovery"; and (2) that "the deposition notices and
22 Requests for Admission are related to the initial scope of discovery in that they were generated in
23 response to issues presented by Google in its responses to American Blind's discovery, which

24
25

7 Order Granting in Par Defendant's Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines ("June 23 Order") at 2 (emphasis added).

26
27
28

9 June 23 Order at 2. .

g Ham DecL. Ex A (June 23 Tr.) at 3 (emphasis added).
10 Hamm DecL. Exs. B (Page Dep. Notice), C (Brin Dep. Notice).

378949.01

3 GOOGLE INC. 's OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND AND WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY TIMELY SERVED GIVEN THE CURNT CUTOFF DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2006 CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (RS)

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 162

Filed 08/16/2006

Page 7 of 14

1 were received prior to the original close of

fact discovery.,,12 On July 31,2006, Google served

2 objections to the deposition notices and RFAs, objecting on the ground the discovery

was

3 untimely and reserving Google's right to make additional objections.13
4 In correspondence faxed on June 30, 2006, American Blind stated that it would serve

5 deposition notices for individuals listed on Google's initial disclosures "early" in the week of
6 July 2, 2006.14 Instead, American Blind waited another month to send out fuher deposition

7 notices. When it finally did, it served deposition notices that purorted to cram seven
8 depositions into the final week ofthe extended fact discovery period. On August 7-8, 2006,
9 American Blind served notices for the August 21,2006 deposition of

Britton Mauchline

10 Picciolini; 15 the August 22,2006 deposition of Jessica Bluett; 16 the August 23, 2006 deposition
11 of Jane Butler;17 the August 23,2006 deposition of

Rick Steele;18 the August 24,2006 deposition
Leshika Samarasinghe;20 and the August

12 of

Bismark Lepe;19 the August 25,2006 deposition of

13 25,2006 deposition of Salar Kamangar.21
14

III. ARGUMENT

15 American Blind does not cite any statutes, rules or case law in support of its motion. The
16 applicable authority is the Northern District's Civil Local Rules. They define the "discovery cut-

17 off' as "the date by which all responses to wrtten discovery are due and by which all depositions
18

19

11 Ham DecL. Ex. D (RFAs).
20
21

12 Hamm Decl. Ex. E (June 30, 2006 letter from Rammelt).

13 Ham DecL. Exs. F (Objections to Page Dep. Notice), G (Objections to Brin Dep. Notice), H
(Objections to RFAs).

22
23

14 Ham DecL. Ex. E (June 30, 2006 letter from Rammelt).
15 Hamm DecL. Ex. I (Picciolini Dep. Notice).

24
25

16 Hamm DecL. Ex. J (Bluett Dep. Notice).

17 Ham Decl Ex. K (Butler Dep. Notice).
18 Hamm DecL. Ex. L (Steele Dep. Notice).

26
27
28

19 Hamm DecL. Ex. M (Lepe Dep. Notice).
20 Hamm DecL. Ex. N (Samarasinghe Dep. Notice).
21 Hamm DecL. Ex. 0 (Kamangar Dep. Notice).

4
378949.01

GOOGLE INC. 's OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND AND WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY TIMELY SERVED GIVEN THE CURNT CUTOFF. DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2006 CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (RS)

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 162

Filed 08/16/2006

Page 8 of 14

1 must be concluded.,,22 As a result, "(d)iscovery requests that call for responses or depositions
2 after the applicable discovery cut-off are not enforceable, except by order of

the Court for good

3 cause shown.,,23 The Commentary to Civil Local Rule 26-2 provides the further, blunt reminder
4 that "( c )ounsel should initiate discovery requests and notice depositions sufficiently in advance

5 ofthe cut-off date to comply with this local rule."

6 Even though this Rule is clear, parties occasionally test it. In Miler v. International
7 Business Machines, 2006 WL 1141090 (N.D. CaL. May 1,2006), the plaintiff

mailed a document

8 request on November 7,2005, when the discovery cut-off date was November 18, 2005. Citing

9 Rule 26-2, the Cour noted that to be timely the "request would have to be mailed no later than
10 October 14,2005.,,24 It then held that because the plaintiff "did not seek leave of

the District

1 1 Court to propound discovery that called for responses after the cut-off date, (defendant) has no
12 obligation to respond to this untimely request." Id. Similarly, in Padgett v. City of Monte
13 Sereno, 2006 WL 1141265, *1 (N.D. CaL. May 1, 2006) (Seeborg, M.l), when the plaintiff
14 mailed discovery requests before the discovery cut-offbut without providing time for responses,

15 the Cour denied plaintiff s motion to compel "(i)n view of the fact that the responses to the
16 written discovery were not due until after the discovery cutoff."

17 Á.
18

American Blind has not complied with the Court's order requiring it to meet and confer and seek leave from the Court before serving discovery.
additional discovery, a pary must

19 Judge Fogel's June 23,2006 order was clear: to serve

20 meet and confer with the other side and, if

that fails, seek "permission to conduct additional

21 discovery.. . from Magistrate Judge Seeborg.,,25 American Blind has defied this ruling. It did

22 not meet and confer or seek the Court's permission before serving additional discovery. Instead,

23 the next business day after the Cour's order it, without any waring, served notices for the

24
25

22 Civil L.R. 26-2.

23id.

26 27
28

24 Miler, 2006 WL 1141090, at *4.

25 June 23 Order at 2; see also Ham DecL. Ex. A (June 23 Tr.) at 3 ("If you want to initiate something that's not already in the pipeline, then you need to go to the magistrate judge and show good cause.").
5

378949.01

GOOGLE INC.'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND AND WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC. 's MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY TIMELY SERVED GIVEN THE CURNT CUTOFF DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2006 CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (RS)

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 162

Filed 08/16/2006

Page 9 of 14

1 depositions of

Google's two founders. Two days later, again without meeting and conferring or

2 seeking leave from the Cour, American Blind served RF As on Google. Then, two days after

3 that, American Blind declared that the Cour's "June 23rd order. . . does not provide any explicit
4 limitations on depositions or other discovery.,,26

5 Even now, American Blind is not seeking leave to file additional discovery; it instead
6 moves to compel discovery based on the erroneous premise that it was timely served (its Motion
7 is titled "Motion To Compel Google To Respond To Discovery Timely Served Given The
8 Curent Cutoff Date of August 26, 2006"). American Blind should have sought leave from the

9 Cour before serving the discovery. In Miler, when a party served discovery that called for
10 responses after the cutoff and then moved to compel, the Cour simply ruled that the responding

11 pary "has no obligation to respond to this untimely request" and denied the motion to compel.27

12 The Court should reach the same conclusion here. Since American Blind has failed to follow the

13 Civil Local Rules or the Cour's June 23 Order, the Cour should deny its motion to compeL.
14 B.

American Blind has not shown good cause for its late-served discovery.

15 Although American Blind moves to compel discovery, rather than to serve additional
16 discovery, even if it had presented the latter motion, it would faiL. American Blind has not

17 shown good cause for serving late discovery, as required by the Cour's June 23 order and the

18 Civil Local Rules. Judge Fogel ordered that any late discovery must focus on matters "that
19 come(J up in completing the pending discovery that leads either pary to think that there's

20 something fuher they need to do.,,28 Furher, before serving this discovery a pary must show
21 "good cause. ,,29 As Judge Seeborg recently ruled, good cause "requires not only that there be

22 good reason for the questions in the abstract, but good reasons that they could not have been
23

24
25

26 Ham Decl. Ex. E (June 30 letter from Ramelt).
27 Miler, 2006 WL 1141090, at *4; see also Milt's Flying Service, Inc. v. A V Finance, Inc., 2002

26 27
28

WL 31975066, at *3 (D. Or. Dec. 2,2002) (the "Cour did not even have to require Defendants to respond to the Motion (to Compel)" made after close of discovery). 28 Ham Decl. Ex. A (June 23 Tr.) at 3.
29 Id.; see also Civil L.R. 26-2.
6
GOOGLE INC.'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND AND WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY TIMELY SERVED GIVEN THE CURNT CUTOFF DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2006 CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (RS)

378949.01

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 162

Filed 08/16/2006

Page 10 of 14

1 propounded within the normal time requirements. ,,30
2
3

1.

American Blind has not shown good cause for noticing the depositions of
Google's presidents after the discovery cut-off.

4 American Blind cannot show good cause for why it did not serve the notices for the
5 depositions of

Mr. Page and Mr. Brin "within the normal time requirements." American Blind
Mr. Page and Mr. Brin now

6 primarly argues that it should be allowed to take the depositions of

7 because it was too busy to conduct discovery this spring due to the ownership and management

8 change at American Blind. The Court already has considered and rejected this excuse when
9 American Blind moved to extend fact discovery.31 After considering American Blind's detailed
10 recitation of

its supposed inability to conduct discovery, the Cour extended fact discovery only

11 "to allow the paries to complete discovery, not to do new discovery.,,32 American Blind has not

12 requested leave to fie a motion for reconsideration and thus should not be permitted to make this
13 arguent anew.33 As a result, American Blind must show good cause-apart from any

14

30 Padgett, 2006 WL 1141265, *1 (emphasis added).
15

16 17
18 19

20
21

31 In any case, American Blind's oft-repeated argument is based on the false claim that "durng the two months leading up to the original close of discovery (sic), American Blind's sole focus" was on its management change. Mot. 2. The truth is that durng this time American Blind engaged in all maner of discovery, including scheduling depositions, takng a deposition, appearng at Google's deposition of one its former employees, serving wrtten discovery, and responding to written discovery. For example, on April 18, American Blind requested that Google identify its remaining 30(b)(6) witnesses (Ham Decl. il2); on April 26, American Blind served an amended deposition notice and an amended version of its third set of document requests (Ram Decl. Ex. P); on May 1, American Blind suggested that Google depose American Blind's 30(b)(6) witness on June 6 (Hamm Decl. il3); on May 9, American Blind asked whether Google had produced certain documents (Ham Decl. il4); on May 11, American
Blind inquired about scheduling the deposition of

22
23

May 17, American Blind complained that Google's timely objections to American Blind's third set of document requests were untimely (Ham Decl. il6); on May 18, American Blind deposed Google Rule 30(b)(6) designee Prashant Fuloria (Ham Decl. il7); on May 26,
(Hamm Decl. Ex.Q); on June 9, American Blind served its responses requests for admissions (Ham Decl. Ex. R); on June 19, American Blind served its responses and objections to Google's second set of requests for production and second set of interrogatories (Hamm Decl. Exs. S and T); and on June 22, American Blind attended Google's deposition of Wiliam Smith (Declaration of Ajay S. Krishnan, filed herewith, il2). 32 Hamm Decl. Ex. A (June 23 Tr.) at 3.
and objections to Google's second set of

Rose Hagan on June 13 (Ham Decl. il5); on

24
25

26 27
28

33 In fact, the Civil Local Rule regarding motions for reconsideration requires the sanctioning of
7 OGLE INC. 'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND AND W ALLP APER FACTORY, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY TIMELY SERVED GIVEN THE CURNT CUTOFF DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2006 CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (RS)

GO

378949.01

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 162

Filed 08/16/2006

Page 11 of 14

1 distractions caused by its management change-for its failure to take these depositions during
2 the more than one-year period in which discovery was open.

3 Neither can American Blind claim that it did not know about Mr. Page or Mr. Brin until
4 after it was too late to notice their depositions for dates within the discovery period. Both

5 Google co-founders are celebrities in the business world, and American Blind itself
6 acknowledges that it listed both as people who "may have information that American Blind may
7 use to support its case" in its initial disclosures served more than a year ago, on April 27, 2005.34

8 Instead, American Blind claims that it delayed for more than a year out of respect for the rule
9 that it first confirm that Mr. Page and Mr. Brin have knowledge relevant to this lawsuit.

10 American Blind claims that a deposition on April 12, 2006 and another on May 18, 2006 first
11 revealed this knowledge. And then-stil needing to explain its more than one month of inaction

12 between May 18 and June 26-American Blind claims it took another five weeks from the
13 second deposition for American Blind to process the information and to conclude that it should
14 depose Mr. Page and Mr. Brin.35 This story has three huge flaws.

15 First, if the April and May depositions truly were the "eureka" moments that caused
16 American Blind to believe that Mr. Page and Mr. Brin have relevant knowledge, American Blind

17 could have made this determination during the April and May depositions. American Blind's
18 lead trial counsel took the April and May depositions and even if American Blind's management
19 was busy with an ownership change, American Blind has offered no explanation about why its
20 lead tral counselor other litigation counsel was so overwhelmed that it could not conduct this

21 analysis.36
22
23

a pary who violates the prohibition against the repetition of "any oral or written argument made . . . in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the pary now seeks to have
reconsidered." Civil L.R. 7.9(c).

24
25

34 Ham Decl. Ex. U at 5. These disclosures stated that Page and Brin have "knowledge regarding Google's advertising policies, Google's corporate philosophy, pending litigation, advertising revenues, and profits(.)" ¡d.
35 Mot. 3.

26
27
28

36 American Blind states that it took another month after the second deposition to "review the informationIn the April and May depositions and determine that Messrs. Brin and Page have information that was necessary for American Blind's defense." Mot. 3. ifthis statement means
8

378949.01

GOOGLE INC.'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND AND WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC. 'S MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY TIMELY SERVED GIVEN THE CURNT CUTOFF DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2006 CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (RS)

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 162

Filed 08/16/2006

Page 12 of 14

1 Second, emails produced by

Google in October 2005, show that Mr. Page was copied on

2 emails, along with dozens of other people at Google, regarding the change to Google's trademark

3 policy.37 Indeed, American Blind itselfhas acknowledged that "Mr. Page's name is identified on

4 numerous documents that Google has produced.,,38 Thus, by American Blind's own admission,
5 it knew about (or should have known about) Mr. Page's limited involvement in the trademark
6 policy change before the close of discovery. As a result, American Blind has not presented

7 "good reasons that the" notice for Mr. Page's deposition "could not have been propounded
8 within the normal time requirements. ,,39

9 Third, American Blind has not shown that either Mr. Page or Mr. Brin "have some

10 unique knowledge pertinent to the issues" in this case, as it must do before gaining the right to
11 depose Google's co-pre~idents.40 The emails on which Mr. Page are copied include 47 other

12 recipients; American Blind canot point to any pertinent emailslistingMr.Brin as a recipient.

13 Moreover, American Blind has made no showing that it has recently discovered information that

14 Mr. Brin possesses information relevant to this lawsuit. To support its argument that it should
15 depose Mr. Brin, American Blind

cites the following deposition testimony:

16

17
18

19

20
21

22
23

24
25

that American Blind's attorneys reviewed the transcript with American Blind's management, then American Blind has violated the Protective Order since Google has designated the sections of transcript at issue "Attorneys' Eyes Only." If, on the other hand, only American Blind's outside counsel conducted this review, there is no reason why outside counsel delayed for more than a month before conducting the review. 37 See, e.g., Ham Decl. Exs. V (GOOGLE 005127-GOOGLE 005128.), W (GOOGLE 004761GOOGLE 004762). 38 Ham Decl. Ex. E (June 30, 2006 letter from Rammelt).
39 Padgett, 2006 WL 1141265, *1.

26 27
28

40 Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Primary Indus. Corp., 1993 WL 364471, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10,
1993).
9
GOOGLE INC.'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND AND WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL GO OGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY TIMELY SERVED GIVEN THE CURNT CUTOFF DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2006 CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (RS)

378949.01

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 162

Filed 08/16/2006

Page 13 of 14

1

2
3
If anything, this testimony reveals Mr. Brin's lack of

knowledge about relevant events.

4
5 Nor can American Blind demonstrate that it has made an effort to exhaust other sources
6 for the information it seeks. In fact, American Blind thus far has taken only one three-par Rule
7 30(b)(6) deposition of

Google's corporate representatives. Until August 7,2006, it had not

8 noticed the individual deposition of any Google employees except for Mr. Page or Mr. Brin.42

9 Since American Blind has not made a showing that Mr. Page or Mr. Brin possess unique
10 knowledge unavailable from other sources, it cannot take their depositions.43
11

2.

American Blind has not shown good cause for why it could not have served
its RFAs earlier.

12

13 American Blind does not attempt to show that it has good cause for serving its RF As
14 more than a month too late. Instead, it argues that responding to these RFAs will not prejudice
15 Google, even though it must show "good reasons" why it could not have served the RF As

16 "within the normal time requirements.,,44 American Blind makes the vague allegation that

17 "Google has failed to respond to American Blind's correspondence regarding matters contained
18 19

Caroline C. Plater In Support of American Blind And Wallpaper Factory Inc.'s Motion To Compel Google To Respond To Discovery Timely Served Given The
Current Cutoff

41 Mot. 3 (citing Declaration of

20
21

Date of August 26,2006, Ex. M at 98:5-99:13). Moreover, American Blind fails

to complete its arguent: even if one or both gentlemen had unique information concernng

Google's decision to change its trademark policy, there is no showing that the reasons for that change have any bearing on this case. Google's policy does, or does not, violate trademark law,
regardless ofthe process by which it was promulgated.

22
23

24
25

42 In addition, once Google had identified Prashant Fuloria as a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent, American Blind served an individual deposition notice for him at the same date and time, under the mistaken impression that doing so would double the federal 7 -hour limitation. 43id; see also Mulvey v. Chrysler Corp., 106 F.RD. 364, 366 (D.RI. 1985); Baine v. General

26

27
28

Motors Corp., 141 F.RD. 332, 334 (M.D. Al. 1991); Folwell v. Hernandez, 210 F.RD. 169, 174 Columbus, Inc., 879 F.2d 212,218 (6th Cir. (M.D.N.C. 2002); Lewellng v. Farmers Ins. of 1989). Moreover, American Blind acknowledges Google's right to "later seek a protective order on the grounds that Messrs. Brin and Page are not subject to deposition in this case" and Google hereby reserves its right to do so. Mot. 3 n. 1. 44 Padgett, 2006 WL 1141265, *1.
10
GOOGLE INC.'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND AND WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC. 'S MOTION TO COMPEL GO OGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY TIMELY SERVED GIVEN THE CURNT CUTOFF DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2006 CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (RS)

378949.01

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 162

Filed 08/16/2006

Page 14 of 14

1 in the requests for admission(.1,,45 But this contention is not true, and American Blind provides
2 no support for it. As a result, the Cour should deny American Blind's motion to compel

3 responses to its late-served RF As.
4

3.

American Blind's additional deposition notices are improper.

5 Since filing this motion, American Blind has attempted to cram seven more depositions
6 into the last week of

the extended fact discovery period. American Blind has not shown good

7 cause for why it did not serve these deposition notices "within the normal time requirements.,,46

8 Nor can it, since each ofthe seven individuals were listed on either American Blind's or
9 Google's initial disclosures, which the parties exchanged exactly 14 months before the June 27,
10 2006 close of discovery.47
11

iv.

CONCLUSION

12 F or the foregoing reasons, the Cour should deny American Blind's motion to compeL.
13 Dated: August 16, 2006

KEKER & V AN NEST, LLP

14
15

16

By: /s/ Klaus H. Ham KLAUS H. HAM
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

17
18

19

20
21

22
23

24
25

45 Mot. 4.

46 Padgett, 2006 WL 1141265, *1.

47 Hamm Decl. Exs. U (American Blind's Initial Disclosures), X (Google's Initial Disclosures).

26 27
28
11

378949.01

GOOGLE INC.'S OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN BLIND AND WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY TIMELY SERVED GIVEN THE CURRNT CUTOFF DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2006 CASE NO. C 03-5340-JF (RS)