Levitte v. Google Inc.

Filing 14

DECLARATION of Leo P. Norton in Opposition to 9 MOTION to Relate C08-3452 RMW and C08-3888 SI Case with C08-3369 JW, 5 MOTION to Relate C08-3369 JW, C08-3452 RMW, C08-3888 SI Cases Consolidated filed byGoogle Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Related document(s) 9 , 5 ) (Norton, Leo) (Filed on 9/8/2008)

Levitte 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.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

HAL K. LEVITTE, 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-03369 JW RS DECLARATION OF LEO P. NORTON IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE INC.'S CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO HAL K. LEVITTE AND PULASKI & MIDDLEMAN, LLC'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED (CIVIL L.R. 312)

NORTON DEC I/S/O OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 08-CV-03369 JW RS

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 this action and in the three actions that Plaintiffs Pulaski & Middleman, LLC ("Pulaski") 1 and Hal K. Levitte ("Levitte") seek to relate through their respective administrative motions. 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
1

Pulaski & Middleman, LLC is the plaintiff in the related action Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google Inc., Case No. C 08-03888-SI. 1.
NORTON DEC I/S/O OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 08-CV-03369 JW RS

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

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 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. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of my September 2, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. email. 6. RK West's counsel never responded to Google's letter, and instead filed its own

administrative motion on August 29, 2008 in the RK West case (as opposed to this case). RK West served its motion by mail, and therefore, Google did not receive it until the late morning on September 2, 2008. RK West's motion seeks to relate all but the Almeida case before the Honorable James Ware. 7. On September 2, 2008, Pulaski's counsel notified Google's counsel that it would

not stipulate that the Almeida case was related and that Pulaski would file its own administrative motion. Pulaski filed its motion in this case later that day, and served it by mail. Google received it in the late morning on September 5, 2008. 8. On September 3, 2008, Levitte's counsel notified Google's counsel that it would

not stipulate that the Almeida case was related and that Levitte would file its own administrative motion. Levitte filed his motion in this case later that day, and served it by mail. Google received it in the late morning on September 5, 2008. 9. After learning that the Pulaski plaintiff intend to file its own dueling administrative 2.
NORTON DEC I/S/O OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 08-CV-03369 JW RS