IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.

Filing 55

Declaration of Gill Sperlein in Support of 54 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents filed by IO Group, Inc.. (Related document(s) 54 ) (Sperlein, Dennis) (Filed on 3/2/2007) Modified on 3/2/2007 (bw, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. Doc. 55 Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 55 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 1 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 GILL SPERLEIN (172887) THE LAW FIRM OF GILL SPERLEIN 584 Castro Street, Suite 849 San Francisco, California 94114 Telephone: (415) 487-1211 X32 Facsimile: (415) 252-7747 Attorney for Plaintiff IO GROUP, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION IO GROUP, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, vs. VEOH NETWORKS, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C-06-03926 (HRL) DECLARATION OF GILL SPERLEIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DATE: April 10, 2007 TIME: 10:00 a.m. COURTROOM: 2 Discovery Cut Off: April 30, 2007 Pre-Trial Conference Date: October 18, 2007 Trial Date: October 24, 2007 I, GILL SPERLEIN, declare: 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California and attorney of record for Plaintiff Io Group, Inc. 2. On June 23, 2006, on behalf of Io Group, Inc., I filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California a civil complaint against Veoh Networks, Inc. 3. On January 9, 2007, on behalf of plaintiff I propounded Plaintiff's First Set of Request for Production of Documents, consisting of twenty-five separate requests. -1SPERLEIN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS C-06-3926 (HRL) Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 55 Filed 03/02/2007 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 1 4. I drafted each and every request with the intent of obtaining documents which either provide specific evidence of defendant's knowledge and actions with regard to plaintiff's claims, or help identify additional documents that could serve that legitimate purpose. 5. Defendant Veoh Productions served written responses dated February 12, 2007. The responses included numerous boilerplate objections. Also, Veoh objected to producing the documents to my office stating that this was a burden. 6. Defendant only agreed to produce documents responsive to nine (9) of plaintiff's requests and most of those related to documents defendant had already produced with its initial disclosures. For the remaining sixteen (16) requests, defendant flatly refused to produce any responsive documents. Veoh even objected to the location of production (plaintiff's offices). 7. I responded with a detailed letter to defense counsel explaining plaintiff's need for the documents responsive to each request and asking that they make their objections more specific or remove them. Specifically, I demanded revised responses and documents be produced by Friday, February 23, 2007.1 8. On Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 10:34 am I received an e-mail from defense counsel stating that she would be out of the office and unavailable until February 27th. When I returned her e-mail to express my dissatisfaction, I received an auto reply reiterating the fact the she would be out of the office until the 27th. I contacted her through other means and at my insistence we arranged a meet and confer for Friday, February 24, 2007. 9. On Friday, February 24, 2007, I conferred with Ms. Golinveaux by telephone. We went over each request, but were unable to resolve many of the disputes. In response to Veoh's 28 In keeping with the Court's standing order, I have not attached copies of correspondence between counsel, but all such correspondence is available at the Court's request. -2SPERLEIN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS C-06-3926 (HRL) Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 55 Filed 03/02/2007 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 objections of over breadth I repeatedly offered limiting language and asked that Ms. Golinveaux offer limiting language. Over and over she stated that no limiting language could cure the problems. For a number of items Ms. Golinveaux did say she would check with her client. One week later, as I finalize this Declaration, I have not heard back from her. 10. After the telephone conference I sent a follow-up letter to defense counsel, reviewing our discussions in detail. I confirmed that I agreed to accept the documents in tiff format and again requested to be informed as to when I could expect production. I never received a response. I asked if Veoh would stipulate to a shortened notice period for plaintiff's motion to compel. I have not received a response. 11. On Thursday, March 1, 2007 at 2:50 p.m. I sent an e-mail to Jennifer Golinveaux and Michael Elkin, informing them that I would file a motion to compel on Friday, March 2, 2007. I wrote that I would assume they had not changed their position on their objections and that they were not willing to agree to a shortened notice time for the motion. I quite directly indicated that they were deliberately delaying discovery in an attempt to hinder plaintiff's access to the responsive documents. 12. It is my understanding that Veoh Networks has only existed for several years and that it is a technology based company. Pursuant to the laws of the United States, I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: March 2, 2007 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Gill Sperlein GILL SPERLEIN, Attorney for Plaintiff -3SPERLEIN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS C-06-3926 (HRL)

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?