Google Inc. et al v. Egger et al

Filing 131

RESPONSE in Support re 64 MOTION to Strike 42 MOTION to Dismiss , Transfer or Stay filed byYahoo! Inc.. (Hung, Richard) (Filed on 8/7/2009)

Google Inc. et al v. Egger et al

Doc. 131

Case5:08-cv-03172-RMW Document131

Filed08/07/09 Page1 of 5

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

[SEE SIGNATURE PAGE FOR COUNSEL]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

GOOGLE INC., AOL LLC, YAHOO! INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., and LYCOS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. L. DANIEL EGGER, SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC, and SITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants.

Case No.

C-08-03172-RMW

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE SITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS, TRANSFER, OR STAY HEARING REQUESTED Date: August 21, 2009 Time: 9:00 AM Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte

PLAINTIFFS' REPLY ISO MOTION TO STRIKE Case No. C-08-03172-RMW sf-2718322
Dockets.Justia.com

Case5:08-cv-03172-RMW Document131

Filed08/07/09 Page2 of 5

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

SRA and Egger's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike is effectively a non-opposition.1 Indeed, by filing the Response on behalf of SRA and Egger only, and not on behalf of Site Technologies, Inc. ("Site Technologies") SRA and Egger concede that their counsel does not represent Site Technologies. SRA and Egger do not attempt to rebut Plaintiffs' showing that their counsel cannot represent Site Technologies in this proceeding. They also do not put forward any theory as to why their counsel should be permitted to file motions on behalf of an entity whose interests are adverse to their own. For all the reasons set forth in their opening brief, Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike therefore should be granted. SRA and Egger's only argument is that Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike is a "waste of time" because this action allegedly should be dismissed. As Plaintiffs explained in their Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, however, neither this motion nor this action is a waste of time.2 This case is appropriately before this Court and should remain so.

"SRA" refers to Defendant Software Rights Archive, LLC. "Egger" refers to Defendant L. Daniel Egger. "Motion to Strike" refers to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Site Technologies, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, Transfer, or Stay, dated January 20, 2009 [Docket No. 64]. "Motion to Dismiss" refers to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Transfer or Stay, Under the First-to-File Rule, Under Rule 12(b)(2) for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and Under Rule 12(b)(1) for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, filed November 10, 2008 [Docket No. 42]. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on July 24, 2009.
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY ISO MOTION TO STRIKE Case No. C-08-03172-RMW sf-2718322
2

1

1

Case5:08-cv-03172-RMW Document131

Filed08/07/09 Page3 of 5

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

Dated: August 7, 2009

Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Juanita R. Brooks Juanita R. Brooks (SBN 75934, [e-mail]) Jason W. Wolff (SBN 215819, [e-mail]) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Thomas B. Walsh, IV (admitted pro hac vice) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 5000 Bank One Center 1717 Main Street Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Jerry T. Yen (SBN 247988, [e-mail]) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 500 Arguello Street, Suite 500 Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs GOOGLE INC. and AOL LLC By: /s/ Richard. S.J. Hung Michael A. Jacobs (CA Bar No. 111664) Richard S.J. Hung (CA Bar No. 197425) MORRISON & FOERSTER 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415-268-7522 Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff YAHOO! INC. By: /s/ Jennifer A. Kash Claude M. Stern (CA Bar No. 96737) Jennifer A. Kash (CA Bar No. 203679) QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART 5 OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP 55 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

PLAINTIFFS' REPLY ISO MOTION TO STRIKE Case No. C-08-03172-RMW sf-2718322

2

Case5:08-cv-03172-RMW Document131

Filed08/07/09 Page4 of 5

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
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY ISO MOTION TO STRIKE Case No. C-08-03172-RMW sf-2718322

Email: [e-mail] Email:[e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC. and LYCOS, INC.

3

Case5:08-cv-03172-RMW Document131

Filed08/07/09 Page5 of 5

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 Dated: August 7, 2009

DECLARATION OF CONSENT Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from counsel for Plaintiffs Google Inc., AOL LLC, IAC Search & Media, Inc. and Lycos, Inc.

By:

_/s/ Richard S.J. Hung___

PLAINTIFFS' REPLY ISO MOTION TO STRIKE Case No. C-08-03172-RMW sf-2718322

4