Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD

Filing 164

MOTION to Compel Withheld Information and Documents filed by CrunchPad, Inc., Interserve, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 10/12/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose. (Attachments: # 1 Scherb Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Scherb, Matthew) (Filed on 9/7/2010)

Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD

Doc. 164 Att. 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802

Andrew P. Bridges (SBN: 122761) [e-mail] David S. Bloch (SBN: 184530) [e-mail] Matthew A. Scherb (SBN: 237461) [e-mail] WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs INTERSERVE, INC. dba TECHCRUNCH and CRUNCHPAD, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION INTERSERVE, INC. dba TECHCRUNCH, a Delaware corporation, and CRUNCHPAD, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD., a Singapore company, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV-09-5812 RS (PVT) DECLARATION OF MATTHEW SCHERB IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF WITHHELD INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS Date: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 Time: 10:00 A.M. Place: Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose Hon. Patricia V. Trumbull

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Winston & Strawn LLP

Scherb Decl. ISO Mot. to Compel Prod. of Withheld Information and Documents -- Case No. CV-09-5812 RS (PVT) Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802

I, Matthew Scherb, declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct: 1. Strawn LLP. 2. On August 25, 2010, in light of Judge Seeborg's August 24, 2010 order dismissing I am counsel of record for Plaintiffs and an associate with the law firm of Winston &

Plaintiffs claim for misappropriation of business ideas, Plaintiffs asked Fusion Garage to concede that its motion for a renewed protective order had become moot and to withdraw that motion. It declined. A true and correct copy of the email exchange of counsel is Exhibit A to this declaration. 3. After Fusion Garage declined to concede mootness and to withdraw its motion,

Plaintiffs sought a telephonic conference to identify the materials Fusion Garage was continuing to withhold (in order to determine the scope of the current discovery dispute) and to learn whether Fusion Garage would continue to refuse to produce source code and highly proprietary information even after a denial of the protective order motion. During the call on September 2, 2010, Fusion Garage was unable to give a final position, but asked counsel for Plaintiffs to put Plaintiffs' position in writing so that Fusion Garage could more effectively provide a response. Plaintiffs' counsel did so and asked for a response. Fusion Garage made no response. 4. Exhibit B to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the May 18, 2009 slip

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Winston & Strawn LLP

opinion in Echostar Satellite LLC v. Freetech, Inc., No. 07-6124 (N.D. Cal.). The opinion is not available through Westlaw or Lexis. Executed September 7, 2010. /s/ Matthew A. Scherb

SF:291006.2

1
Scherb Decl. ISO Mot. to Compel Prod. of Withheld Information and Documents -- Case No. CV-09-5812 RS (PVT)