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

Filing 273

Attachment 1
Declaration of Ajay S. Krishnan in Support of 272 Reply Memorandum in Support of Google's Motion for Terminating, Evidentiary, and Monetary Sanctions Against ABWF for Spoliation of Evidence filed byGoogle Inc., Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s)272) (Krishnan, Ajay) (Filed on 2/2/2007)

Download PDF
Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. Doc. 273 Att. 1 Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 273-2 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT A Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 273-2 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 2 of 3 LAW OFFICES KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 710 SANSOME STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-1704 TELEPHONE (415) 391-5400 FAX (415) 397-71 aa WWW.KVN.COM AJAY S. KRISHNAN AKRISHNANliKVN.COM July 21, 2006 VIA FACSIMILE Caroline C. Plater, Esq. Kelley Drye & Waren LLP 333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Re: Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. Dear Care: I write regarding five outstading issues related to ABWF's document production. First, Bil Smith testified at his deposition that he conducted a study involving "user testing" on ABWF's website. See Transcript of Deposition of Willam W. Smith, pp. 86-93. ABWF has not produced all documents associated with this study. Based on Mr. Smith's deposition testimony, there should at least be video tapes, reports, questionnres, scripts, invoices, e-mails, and contracts associated with this study. Documents pertining to ths study would be responsive, at least, to Requests 7, 13,14,20,26,27,35,38, and 39 in Google's First Set of Requests for Production, and Requests 1,2,3,4, and 8 in Google's Second Set of Requests for Production. ABWF has claimed that it has completed its document production, but these documents are responsive, and Google requires them immediately in order to properly prepare for its depositions. Google has aleady been prejudiced by ABWF's failure to produce these documents. Please produce these documents immediately. Second, ABWF has not produced to Google copies of every version of ABWF's home page. These documents are responsive, at least, to Requests 5,13, 19,26,27,38, and 39 in Google's First Set of Requests for Production, and Requests 1,2,4, and 8 in Google's Second Set ofRequesfs for Production. Again, please produce these documents immediately. Third, ABWF has not produced all documents related to the thee Kaden focus group studies it conducted. These studies stae that parcipant questionnaires are available, but ABWF has not produced these docUJents. Such documents are in ABWF's "possession, custody, or they are curently in the possession of a thrd pary, such as Kaden Company. ABWF was obligated to search for and produce all documents in its control, and has been obligated to obtan these documents from Kaden, if that is where they are. Additionally, ABWF control," even if '377573.01 Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Caroline C. Plater, Esq. July 21, 2006 Page 2 Document 273-2 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 3 of 3 has not produced scripts, invoices, e-mails, and contracts associated with these thee studies. Please produce these documents immediately. Fourth, several chars that ABWF has produced are ilegible, and must be produced again in a legible format. The char spaning bates range ABWF 5530 to ABWF 5534 contains cells where some of the information in the cell is not visible, given the way the char was printed. Additionally, the colum headings and the colums are not aligned in this char, creating ambiguity as to which colum heading pertns to which colum. The char spanng from bates range ABWF 5605 to ABWF 7802 contain both of these problems as well. Please produce imediately readable copies of the char spanng the bates range ABWF 5530 to 5534, and the char spanng from bates range ABWF 5605 to ABWF 7802. Fifh, on July 6,2006, I sent you a letter contesting ABWF'sposition on (1) whether privilege with regard to Google's Second Set of Requests for Production, and (2) whether ABWF has produced its documents in ''te usual ABWF had waived its objection and claims of course of business." I never received ABWF's response to that letter. With regard to the first issue in that letter, ABWF has stil provided no legal basis for its position. With regard to the second issue, ABWF has not explained why its production complies with the stadards regarding the "usual course of business" requirement that were set out in order. Please respond to those points by Wednesday, July 26, so that Google can bring these issues to the Cour's attention, if necessary. Judge Seeborg's Februy 6,2006 ASK/rw cc: David A. Ramelt, Esq. 377573.1

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?