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)
<![CDATA[
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 6
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) (rhodesmg@cooley.com) LEO P. NORTON (216282) (lnorton@cooley.com) 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 550-6000 Facsimile: (858) 550-6420 Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
RK WEST, INC., a California corporation d/b/a Malibu Wholesale, 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-03452 RMW RS DECLARATION OF LEO P. NORTON IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-12
NORTON DEC I/S/O OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 08-CV-03452 RMW RS
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 2 of 6
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 this action and in the three actions that RK West seeks to relate through its administrative motion. 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. 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 2 is a true and correct copy of the letter I sent to plaintiffs' counsel on August 25, 2008. 4. 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 1.
NORTON DEC I/S/O OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 08-CV-03452 RMW RS
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 6
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
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 3 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. 5. 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 4 is a true and correct copy of my September 2, 2008 email. 6. 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 request for a consolidated response deadline of September 30, 2008. 7. Late in the morning on September 2, 2008, I received via priority U.S. mail the RK
West case plaintiff's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12 and supporting documents that were filed in the RK West case. The administrative motion seeks to relate the Levitte, RK West, and Pulaski cases before Judge James Ware. 8. Today, concurrently with the filing of its opposition to the RK West case plaintiff's
administrative motion, Google filed its administrative motion in the Almeida case, which seeks to 2.
NORTON DEC I/S/O OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 08-CV-03452 RMW RS
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 4 of 6
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 5 of 6
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 6 of 6
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 14
EXHIBIT 1
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 2 of 14
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 14
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 4 of 14
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 5 of 14
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 6 of 14
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 7 of 14
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 8 of 14
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 9 of 14
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 10 of 14
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 11 of 14
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 12 of 14
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 13 of 14
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 14 of 14
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-3
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 2
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-3
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 2 of 4
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-3
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 4
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-3
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 4 of 4
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-4
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 3
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-4
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 2 of 4
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-4
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 4
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-4
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 4 of 4
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-5
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 4
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-5
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 2 of 3
Case 5:08-cv-03452-RMW
Document 14-5
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 3
]]>
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?
