Almeida v. Google, Inc.

Filing 17

Declaration of Leo P. Norton in Support of 16 MOTION to Relate Case Administrative Motion filed byGoogle, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9)(Related document(s) 16 ) (Norton, Leo) (Filed on 9/4/2008)

Almeida v. Google, Inc.

Doc. 1

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
COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN DIEGO

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127) ([e-mail]) LEO P. NORTON (216282) ([e-mail]) 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

DAVID ALMEIDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC. a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

Case No. 08-CV-02088 RMW (PVT) DECLARATION OF LEO P. NORTON IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION CASES AGAINST GOOGLE INC. REGARDING ADWORDS ADVERTISING PROGRAM SHOULD BE RELATED (Civil L.R. 3-12 & 7-11)

1

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP attorneys Daralyn J. Durie, David J. Silbert, Ryan M. Kent, and Alyse Bertenthal are counsel of record for Google Inc. in this case, and have already appeared in this action. COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP ("Cooley") and its attorneys listed above are counsel for Google Inc. in the three actions sought to be related with this action. Civil Local Rule 3-12 requires that this motion be made in the first filed action, which is this action, and therefore the Cooley attorneys make this motion in this case on Google's behalf.
NORTON DEC I/S/O ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 08-CV-02088 RMW (PVT)

Dockets.Justia.com

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
COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN DIEGO

I, Leo P. Norton, declare: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California, and I am

admitted to practice before this Court. I am an associate with the law firm of Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, attorneys for Defendant Google Inc. in three of the four actions sought to be related. As an attorney for Google, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration, and if called upon to testify, I could and would testify competently thereto. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Complaint against

Google in the case entitled David Almeida v. Google, Inc., Case No. C 08-02088-RMW ("Almeida case"), which was filed on April 22, 2008. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Complaint against

Google in the case entitled Hal K. Levitte v. Google, Inc., Case No. C 08-03369-JW ("Levitte case"), which was filed on July 11, 2008. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the Complaint against

Google in the case entitled RK West, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Case No. C 08-03452-RMW ("RK West case"), which was filed on July 17, 2008. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the Complaint against

Google in the case entitled Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google Inc., Case No. C 08-03888-SI ("Pulaski case"), which was filed on August 14, 2008. 6. On August 25, 2008, I sent plaintiffs' counsel in the Almeida, Levitte, RK West,

and Pulaski cases a meet and confer letter via email and mail. I wrote to them to: (1) notify them that the Levitte, RK West, and Pulaski cases are related to each other and to the earlier-filed Almeida case; (2) attempt to reach a stipulation on Google's intended administrative motion under Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11 to relate the cases; and (3) request that Google's time to answer or otherwise respond to the Levitte, RK West, and Pulaski cases complaints be coordinated and an extension of time such that Google's new response deadline in those three cases is on or before September 30, 2008. I requested that plaintiffs' counsel respond to my letter by end of day Wednesday, August 27, 2008. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the letter I sent to plaintiffs' counsel on August 25, 2008. 1.
NORTON DEC I/S/O ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 08-CV-02088 RMW (PVT)

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
COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN DIEGO

7.

On August 26, 2008, at 9:24 a.m., I received an email from plaintiff's counsel in

the Levitte case, which was copied to all other plaintiffs' counsel, purporting to write on behalf of plaintiffs' counsel in the Almeida, Levitte, RK West, and Pulaski cases and requesting an additional week to and including September 3, 2008 to respond to my August 25, 2008 letter and granting an interim extension to respond to the complaint in the Levitte case. Later that day, at 12:19 p.m., I responded via email, which was copied to all plaintiffs' counsel in the four cases, granting their requested extension. Still later that day, at 1:00 p.m., I received another email from plaintiff's counsel in the Levitte case, which was copied to all other plaintiffs' counsel, stating that plaintiffs' counsel in the four cases would be discussing the issues raised in my August 25, 2008 letter and that they would respond by Thursday, August 28, 2008 at the latest. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of an email chain containing my email to all plaintiffs' counsel on August 25, 2008 enclosing my August 25, 2008 letter, the Levitte case plaintiff's counsel's response on August 26, 2008, at 9:24 a.m., my response that day at 12:19 p.m., and the Levitte case plaintiff's counsel's response at 1:00 p.m. 8. I did not receive a response from any of the plaintiffs' counsel on Thursday,

August 28, 2008 as promised. Having still not received any response after the holiday weekend, I emailed all plaintiffs' counsel on September 2, 2008, at 8:11 a.m., demanding that plaintiffs respond to my August 25, 2008 letter by noon. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of my September 2, 2008 email. 9. As of the signing and filing of this declaration, I have not received a response to

my August 25, 2008 letter or any of my email communications from the RK West case plaintiff's counsel. The RK West plaintiff's counsel, who is also the Almeida case plaintiff's counsel, is the only plaintiff's counsel that has not responded to my communications, and it is the only plaintiff's counsel that has not responded to my request that Google's time to answer or otherwise respond to the Levitte, RK West, and Pulaski cases complaints be coordinated and that Google be granted an extension of time such that Google's new response deadline in those three cases is on or before September 30, 2008. I have received responses from the Levitte and Pulaski cases plaintiffs, both of whom take the position that the Almeida case is not related but have stipulated to Google's 2.
NORTON DEC I/S/O ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 08-CV-02088 RMW (PVT)