Kinderstart.Com, LLC v. Google, Inc.

Filing 69

Attachment 3
Cross MOTION for Sanctions Against Google, Inc. and David H. Kramer filed by Kinderstart.Com, LLC. Motion Hearing set for 1/19/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 1 - Declaration of Titus Lin# 2 Exhibit Ex 2 - Declaration of Randall McCarley# 3 Exhibit Ex 3 - Request for Judicial Notice# 4 Exhibit Ex 4 - Declaration of Gregory J. Yu)(Yu, Gregory) (Filed on 11/16/2006)

Download PDF
Kinderstart.Com, LLC v. Google, Inc. Doc. 69 Att. 3 Case 5:06-cv-02057-JF Document 69-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 3 KinderStart.com LLC v. Google, Inc. C 06-2057 JF EXHBIT 3 Request for Judicial Notice In support of Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Against Google, Inc. and its Legal Counsel under Rule 11 Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:06-cv-02057-JF Document 69-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 3 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 Gregory J. Yu (State Bar No. 133955) GLOBAL LAW GROUP 2015 Pioneer Court, Suite P-1 San Mateo, CA 94403 Telephone: (650) 570-4140 Facsimile: (650) 570-4142 E-mail: glgroup [at] inreach [dot] com Attorney for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class and Subclasses UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION KINDERSTART.COM LLC, a California Case No. C 06-2057 JF limited liability company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION Plaintiffs, FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST GOOGLE, INC. AND ITS LEGAL COUNSEL v. DAVID H. KRAMER UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 11 GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. Plaintiff KinderStart.com LLC ("KinderStart"), by and through its attorney, hereby requests the Court to take judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 of the following facts and items: 1. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the FTC Consumer Alert, "Being Frank about Search Engine Rank," September 2002. 2. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of Home Page of the official website of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, visited on October 19, 2006, at http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov. Rule 201 provides in part that a "judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is . . . capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST GOOGLE UNDER RULE 11 -1- Case No. C 06-2057 JF Case 5:06-cv-02057-JF Document 69-4 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 3 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 sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). "A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information." Id., 201(d). In this circuit, a district court has taken judicial notice for Web pages to a government agency website containing rules and regulations. Jenkel v. City & County of San Francisco, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49923, at 5 n.3 (Jul. 21, 2006) (court took notice of the web page for the Rules Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors). Here, plaintiffs are requesting recognition of the Tenth Circuit's practice of releasing both published and unpublished decisions. This is relevant because the case cited by Google, Search King v. Google, Inc., out of the Western District of Oklahoma is within the Tenth Circuit. Accordingly, certain cases within this circuit do have precedential value and are citable because of they are selected for publication within the official reporter. Other cases are not so published and as a general rule are not cited to the court for consideration. Search King falls into such class as an unpublished opinion not appearing in the official reporter. As to releases and rules of the Federal Trade Commission, the Ninth Circuit has taken notice pursuant to Rule 201. Romine v. Diversified Collection Servs., 155 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 1998) (court took notice of an FTC staff letter on the meaning of a statutory term). It is therefore proper to take judicial notice of the attached FTC Consumer Alert. The contents are relevant because it highlights the industry practice among certain search engines that adjust or rank listings according to payment from websites or URLs. Dated: October 19, 2006 GLOBAL LAW GROUP By: ___/s/ Gregory J. Yu__________________ Gregory J. Yu, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff KinderStart.com LLC and for the proposed Class and Subclasses REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST GOOGLE UNDER RULE 11 -2- Case No. C 06-2057 JF

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?