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

Filing 273

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

Doc. 273 Att. 2

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 273-3

Filed 02/02/2007

Page 1 of 5

EXHIBIT B

Dockets.Justia.com

JUL 26 2006 se 26 PM FR KELLEY DRYE ~ WARREN54Filed 02/02/2007440500279of 4 i P. 0 i i 0538 TO *20 i Ca 4: 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 273-3 Page 2 i 5

KELLEY DRYE
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
TO
FIRM

Ajay $. Krshnan
Keker & VanNest LLP

CITY

FAX

[phone]

PHONE
NO. OF PAGES
OATE

[phone] (including this page)

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 333 WEST WACKER DRIVE SUITE 2600 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606

[phone]
FAX (314!) 137-7095

July 26, 2006
Please see attached.

MESSAGE:

FROM

Caroline C. Plater
[phone]

NEW YORK,NY WASHINGTON, DC
TYSONS CORNER. VA CHICAGO,IL. STAMFORD, CT PA~SIPPANY. NJ E1RU$SELS
AFFILIATE OFf'ICES

PHONE
E-MAIL

cplater~kelleydrye.com
03971

TIMEKEEPER 10
CLIENT NO.

014405.0027

JAKARTA
MUMBAI

IF PROBLEMS OCCUR DURING TRANSMISSION PLEASE CALL [phone].
The informatiOn coniained In this faosimile meSsage is intended for the use of the individual Of entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privleged. confidential and exempt from disclosure under applìcable law. If the reader of this message is not the intendec repient, or the employee or agent responSible for delivery to the intended recipient. you are hereby notified that any l,Sè, copying, disclosure

or dissemination of this communication may be subjeet 10 legal restriction or sanction.

JUL 26 2006se 4: 26 PM FR KELLEYDocument 273-3 DRYE ~ WARREN54 i 0538 TO *20 i 440500279 i 4 i P. 02 Ca 5:03-cv-05340-JF Filed 02/02/2007 Page 3 of 5

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN L.L.P
.6 LIMIT'IO l.1,6B'\,ITY PAri'I'NEflSl-IFl

333 WEST WACKER DRiVe:
New YORK. NY

SUITE aeoo
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606
(~I.2) 957-7070

FACSIMILE

WASl'If"GTON. oC
TYSON!¡ CORNeR. VA

(312) S57-'095
w. .kelleydryo;.e.m

STAMI'OioO, CT

PAI'SIPPAN... N'i
BRusol~L.s, BELG'VM
ÅI=i:ILIAT~ OPFiCES

DIR~CT LINE!; [phone]

EMAIL: cplaterankoiiieydrye.~om

,JAKARTA. INDONESIA
~LlMaAI. INOlA

July 26~ 2006

VIA FACSIMILE

Ajay S. Krshnan Keker & Van Nest LLP 710 Sansoine Street San Francisco~ CA 94111

Re: Gooi;i:e Inc. v. American Blind and Walloaoer Factory. Inc.,
Dear Ajay:

This responds to your letter of July 21~ 2006.

First, with regard to the documents referenced by Bil Smith in his deposition, I the documents that Amercan Blind was able to obtain regarding the referenced study. You wil receive them tomorrow. Please be advised that these materials were not in American Blind's possession at any time duriiig our prior productions. Upon receipt of your request, as an accommodation, American Blind contacted the third pary who ran the study to obtain these materials. 1 have been informed by our client that we do nót have a copy of a video that was supposedly provided to Bil Smith.
am providing under a separate coverall of

Second, I believe we have produced copies of every version of American Blind's home page that was in our possession. However, we have asked our client to look into this
fuer and if any additional versions are found, we will produce them to you.

Third, with regard to the Kaden Studies, we provided everythirig we had in our possession. While we have agreed to provide you materials. that were maintained by a third pary with regard to the study referenced by Bil Smith, we do not intend to do this in every instance absent some legal authority compellng us to do so. Please provide me with legal authority for the proposition that we are obligated to obtain additional materals from a third party that are not
maintained by American Blind in

order to comply with our discover obligations.

CrlOI/Pt.TC/21

1424.1

JUL 26 2006 se 27 PM FR KELLEY DRYE ~ WARREN54Filed 02/02/2007440500279of4 i P. 03 i 0538 TO *20 i Ca 4: 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 273-3 Page 4 i 5
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP

Ajay S. Krishnan July 26, 2006 Page Two
suggest

FoLirh, with regard to the maner in which we produced several chars. I

you review the manner in which Google produced its spreadsheets and chars before you demand that we provide our documents in special formats. American Blind simply provided Google its documents in the same format that Google provided its documents to Amercan Blind. For example, see GGE 0050541-0052482, GGE 52483-0054438 and GGLE 0021921-0022825.
These are just a sampling of

the mimerous charts that Google produced in the exact maner that American Blind produced the chas you refer to in your letter.

and claims of

Fifth, with regard to your statement that American Blind "waived its objections I have Requests for Production," privilege with regard to Google's Second Set of

already responded to ths point and do not concede a waiver for the following reasons:
(a) The only documents withheld were attorney client or attorney work

(b) If

product privileged and I have provided you with anupdated privilege log in that regard. The privileged materials withheld consist of 15 pages of your waiver argument does documents. The case you cite in support of not address in any way the assertion of attorney client privilege or attorney work product privilege, nmch less a waiver ofthe same under these circumstances. you review American Blind's responses to Google's Second Set of Requests for Production, you wil note that every request has been directly answered. notwithstanding any'stated objections. There is not a single response that provides only an objection and no answer. Therefore, I really don't understand why you insist on pursuing a non-issue.
result ofthe exceptional circumstances that American Blind was involved

(c) We were granted aii extension to complete discovery alady served as a
in at the time Google served its second set of discovery. The cour was well aware that American Blind answered the second set ofrequests for production late due to these circumstances and made no issue of it.
Finally, with regard to American Blind's production being made in the ordinar

course, this issue has been addressed ad nauseam. We have complied with Rule 34 in our production. Your letter of July 6, 2006, incorrectly refers to American Blind's obligation to comply with Judge Seeborg's February 8, 2006 Order in its production. That Order only applied
to Google. Please read the Order. As for my einail to Klaus Hainm on March 27, 2006, you
appear to be missing some of

the necessary discussions that preci;ded and followed that

exchange. I objected to the manner in which Klaus produced documents on or about March 23.

2006, following Judge Seeborg's order. See Klaus Hamn Letter dated March 23, 2006 attached
hereto. As conveyed in my telephone conversation with Klaus on or before March 27, 2006, we

believed Googlc was under a continuing obligation to produce its documents in the manner

CHOI/PLATcliI1424.1

JUL 26 2006

4: 27 PM FR KELLEY DRYE ~ WARREN54 i 0538 TO *20 i 440500279 i 4 i P. 04 Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 273-3 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 5 of 5
KELLE:Y DRYE & WARREN LLP

Ajay S. Krshnan July 26! 2006 Page Three

instrcted 'by Judge Seeborg. Klaus disagreed. In compromise! he sent American Blid a new the production, which we accepted as suffcient. See Klaus and more detailed explanation of Hamm Letter dated March 28, 2006. Thereafter! American Blind produced its documen.ts in the ordinary course and with detailed descriptions similar to those provided by Google.
Sincerely,

Caroline C. Plater
CCP:ccp

~~

CHOIIPLATC./11424.1

** TOTi:1 Pi:GF. Vl4 **