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

Filing 273

Attachment 3
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. 3 Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 273-4 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT C Dockets.Justia.com Alj W l' KeSpOnSe m upposnion to voogie.s ;:ancnons lYonon Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 273-4 Filed 02/02/2007 yage i or L Page 2 of 3 Ajay Krishnan From: Michael Page Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 3:20 PM To: Rammelt David A. Cc: Klaus Hamm; Ajay Krishnan Subject: RE: ABWF Response In Opposition to Google's Sanctions Motion David, help your position while asserting privilege over documents and testimony that do not. Imagine, for a hypothetical example, one email to Mr. Katzman dutifully asking him to preserve and produce responsive documents, followed by a second one three months later asking him why you never received any, and an internal memo by counsel on the Katzman matter cataloging the documents he destroyed. We cannot blindly agree to a stipulation that would place the first in evidence while withholdng the second and third as privileged. Obviously, we cannot agree to a selective waiver, whereby you are free to submit documents that The only way I see around this would be a full waiver of privilege, but limited to the subject matter of retention, collection, production, or destruction of evidence, from both this case and American Blind's case against Mr. Katzman. We would require that you produce all relevant attorney-client privileged or work-product documents, and make available witnesses from both your client and your firm concerning oral communications on the subject. Otherwise, I'm afraid we have to decline. Sorry I can't accomodate you on this one, but I'm sure you understand. MHP From: Rammelt David A. (mailto:DRammelt(QKelleyDrye.com) Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 2:29 PM To: Michael Page Subject: ABWF Response In Opposition to Google's Sanctions Motion Mike, To fully respond to some of the issues raised in the sanctions motion, I planned on attaching affidavits from employees or former employees describing some of our efforts to preserve, identify and collect documents. While I don't think there is anything earth shattering here, some of this material includes communications to and from this office and so I am concerned about a possible privilege waiver(s) being raised. Will you agree that nothing contained in our response or affidavits will be deemed a waiver? I suppose the alternative is to file in camera or a motion, but I am not sure it is necessary and thought I would check with you first. Thanks. David A. Rammelt, Esq. Kelley Drye & Warren 333 W. Wacker Dr., Sle. 2600 Chicago, Ilinois 60606 2/2/2007 Alj W l' Kesponse In Upposition to voogle's :Sanctions Motion Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 273-4 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 3 of 3 Page 2 of2 (312) 857-7077 (direct) (312) 857-7095 (fax) lt!a-I1I1~.lt((k~II~.Ycll'~.~m 2/2/2007

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?