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

Filing 180

EXHIBITS re 179 Memorandum in Opposition, Exhibit G filed byFusion Garage PTE. LTD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit H, # 2 Exhibit I, # 3 Exhibit J, # 4 Exhibit K, # 5 Proposed Order)(Related document(s) 179 ) (Pennypacker, Evette) (Filed on 9/23/2010)

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

Doc. 180 Att. 2

EXHIBIT I

Dockets.Justia.com

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Claude M. Stern (Bar No. 96737) claudestern@ quinnemanuel.com Evette Pennypacker (Bar No. 203515) evettepennypacker@ quinnemanuel.corri
555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile : [phone] Joshua L. Sohn (Bar No. 250105) joshuasohn @quinnemanuel.com Sam S . Stake (Bar No. 257916) samstake @ quinnemanuel.com

50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco , California 94111 (415).875-6600 9 Telephone: Facsimile : [phone] 10
Attorneys for Defendant Fusion Garage PTE. Ltd.

11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

INTERSERVE, INC. dba TECHCRUNCH, a Delaware corporation , and CRUNCHPAD, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs,
VS. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
04049.51632/3540420.1

CASE NO. 09-cv - 5812 RS SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FIRST AND SECOND SETS OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD.

FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD, a Singapore company,
Defendant.

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Fusion Garage PTE Ltd. hereby submits the following supplemental objections and responses to Plaintiffs Interserve, Inc. dba TechCrunch and CrunchPad, Inc.'s First and Second Sets of Requests For Production Of Documents And Things.

SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FIRST AND SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD.

inadvertent production of any such document shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege applicable to the document or of the work-product doctrine as applied thereto.

8.

Fusion Garage objects to each request to the extent that it seeks the production of

documents that are available from another source, in particular Plaintiffs. An objection on this ground does not constitute a representation or admission that such information does in fact exist. 6 9. Fusion Garage objects to each request to the extent that it seeks responses which

7 involve the disclosure of information and/or documents that would invade the privacy rights of
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 third persons. Fusion Garage is not authorized to and cannot waive these third persons' privacy rights. 10. Each of the following responses are expressly made subject to the above General

Objections, all of which are incorporated in each of the following objections to specific requests. OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC REQUESTS

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
All documents constituting or concerning any communications with Michael Arrington, Heather Harde , Louis Monier, Nik Cubrilovic, Brian Kindle, or TechCrunch. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein. Fusion Garage objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous, as it does not specify the other party to the requested communications . Without specifying the other

20 party , Fusion Garage cannot determine which communications are being requested. 21 22 23 24 25

Fusion Garage further objects to this request to, the extent that it seeks information that is
in the custody or control of Plaintiffs and/or equally available from Plaintiffs.

Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad with respect to scope and time.
Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Fusion Garage has complied with

26 the Court's Order of April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 6-1) to produce documents responsive to this request. 27 28
04049. 51632(3540420.1

-3SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FIRST AND SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD.

I 2 3

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Documents sufficient to identify all persons who have participated in the development, design , manufacturing , documentation , marketing , advertising and promotion of the CrunchPad, or

4 in the planning for any of those activities. 5 6 7 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein. Fusion Garage objects to the defined term "CrunchPad" as vague and ambiguous as it

8 purports to encompass Fusion Garage's products , including the JooJoo. 9
Fusion Garage further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information regarding

10 the "CrunchPad ," as Fusion Garage understands that no such device exists. Any documents that
II Fusion Garage agrees to produce in response to this request shall not be deemed an admission as

12 to the existence of the CrunchPad or that the JooJoo is related to, or a successor to, the alleged 13 CrunchPad. Fusion Garage further objects that Plaintiffs are trying to use this request to elicit a 14 response or objection that a Fusion Garage product is, or is related to, the CrunchPad.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
04049.5163213540420.1

Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it assumes facts not in evidence; namely, the existence of the "CrunchPad" device. It is Fusion Garage's understanding that there is no such device. Fusion Garage further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is in the custody or control of Plaintiffs and/or equally available from Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs assert that the CrunchPad is their device. Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Fusion Garage has complied with the Court's Order of April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 61) to produce documents responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
Documents-sufficient to identify all persons who have participated in the development, design, manufacturing, documentation, marketing, advertising and promotion of the JooJoo, or in the planning for any of those activities.

-7SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FIRST AND SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD,

I

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein. Fusion Garage objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information which is

2
3

4 neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5 6 Fusion Garage further objects that this request is vague and ambiguous.
Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Fusion Garage has complied with

7 the Court's Order of April 9, 2010 (Dkt . 61) to produce documents responsive to this request. 8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 9
All documents constituting or concerning communications in which you indicated that

10 TechCrunch or Michael Arrington was not providing resources , work, contributions , technology,
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
04049.51632 13540420.1

staff, expertise, introductions , money, or benefits that it or he should have provided. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9;

Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein. Fusion Garage objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and other applicable privileges. Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome, harassing , and overbroad with respect to scope.
Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Fusion Garage has complied with the Court's Order of April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 61) to produce documents responsive to this request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
All documents constituting or concerning communications in which you indicated that TechCrunch or Michael Arrington failed to fulfill. any promises they made. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein. Fusion Garage objects to this request on the ground that irseeks information protected by

the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and other applicable privileges.
-8SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FIRST AND SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein. Fusion Garage objects that this request seeks highly proprietary information and/or source code, but Plaintiffs have not submitted an adequate Statement of Misappropriated Business Ideas. 5 6
7

in accordance with the Court's Order of April 9, 2010. (See Dkt. 62). Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome, harassing, and overbroad with respect to scope. Fusion Garage further objects that this request is vague and ambiguous.

8

9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
10

Documents sufficient to identify all suppliers of any components of the JooJoo device. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein. Fusion Garage objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information the disclosure

II 12 13

of which would violate the privacy rights of individuals who are not parties to this action. Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome, harassing , and overbroad with respect to scope. Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Fusion Garage has complied with the Court's Order of April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 61) to produce documents responsive to this request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: All documents concerning user experience testing of the CrunchPad. 24 25 26 27 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth. therein. Fusion Garage objects to the defined term "CrunchPad" as vague and ambiguous as it purports to encompass Fusion Garage ' s products, including the JooJoo. -12SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FIRST AND SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD.

28
04049.51632 /3540420.1

Fusion Garage further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is in the custody or control of Plaintiffs and/or equally available from Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs assert that the CrunchPad is their device. Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Fusion Garage has complied with
the Court's Order of April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 61) to produce documents responsive to this request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: 10 11 12 13
All documents concerning marketing of the JooJoo.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein. Fusion Garage objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome,

14 harassing , and overbroad with respect to scope. 15 Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections , Fusion Garage has complied with

16 the Court's Order of April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 61) to produce documents responsive to this request. 17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:
All documents concerning plans for the development , design, manufacturing , marketing, advertising and promotion, and distribution of the CrunchPad.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:
Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein. Fusion Garage objects to the defined term "CrunchPad" as vague and ambiguous as it purports to encompass Fusion Garage ' s products, including the JooJoo.

25

Fusion Garage further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information regarding

26 the "CrunchPad ," as Fusion Garage understands that no such device exists. Any documents that 27 Fusion Garage agrees to produce in response to this request shall not be deemed an admission as 28
04049.51632/3540420.1

-16SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FIRST AND SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:
All documents constituting or concerning communications with Pegatron. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein. Fusion Garage objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous, as it

does not specify the other party to the requested communications . Without specifying the other party, fusion Garage cannot determine which communications are being requested. Fusion Garage further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is in the custody or control of Plaintiffs and/or equally available from Plaintiffs. Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information the . disclosure of which would violate the privacy rights of individuals who are not parties to this action. 13 Fusion Garage objects that this request seeks highly proprietary information and/or source

14 code , but Plaintiffs have not submitted an adequate Statement of Misappropriated Business Ideas 15 16
in accordance with the Court's Order of April 9, 2010. (See Dkt. 62).

Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections , Fusion Garage has complied with the Court's Order of April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 61) to produce documents responsive to this request, to the extent that such documents do not disclose Fusion Garage 's highly proprietary information.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:
All documents concerning plans for or discussions of a merger between you and CrunchPad,Inc.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:
Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein. Fusion Garage further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is in the custody or control of Plaintiffs and/or equally available from Plaintiffs. .

27 28
04049 . 51632/3540420.1

-18SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FIRST AND SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD.

I 2 .3 4. 5

Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and other applicable
privileges. Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Fusion Garage has complied with the Court's Order of April -9, 2010 (Dkt. 61) to produce documents responsive to this request.

6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: All documents concerning communications concerning a merger'between you and CrunchPad, Inc. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:
Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein.

12

Fusion Garage objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information that is in the

13 custody or control of Plaintiffs and/or equally available from Plaintiffs. 14
Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information protected by the attorney- client privilege , the work-product doctrine , and other applicable privileges.

Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Fusion Garage has complied with the Court's Order of April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 61) to produce documents responsive to this request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: All documents concerning communications with your investors. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein, Fusion Garage objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information the disclosure of which would violate the privacy rights of individuals who are not parties to this action. Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome, 27 harassing , and overbroad with respect to scope. 28
04049.51632/3540420.1

-19SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FIRST AND SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD.

I 2

Fusion Garage objects that this request is vague and ambiguous.

3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: All documents concerning contracts , agreements or understandings concerning the CrunchPad or the project to develop it. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34:
Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth . therein. Fusion Garage objects to the defined term " CrunchPad " as vague and ambiguous as it purports to encompass Fusion Garage ' s products, including the JooJoo.

Fusion Garage further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information regarding the "CrunchPad," as Fusion Garage understands that no such device exists. Any documents that 12 Fusion Garage agrees to produce in response to this request shall not be deemed an admission as 13 to the existence of the CrunchPad or that the JooJoo is related to, or a successor to, the alleged.
14 CrunchPad. Fusion Garage further objects that Plaintiffs are trying to use this request to elicit a

15 response or objection that a Fusion Garage product is, or is related to, the CrunchPad. .16 Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it assumes facts not in

17 evidence; namely, the existence of the "CrunchPad"device. It is Fusion Garage's understanding 18 that there is no such device.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
04049.51632/354042D. I

Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and other applicable privileges. Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous as to the term "understandings." Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Fusion Garage has complied with the Court's Order of April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 61) to produce documents responsive to this request.

-24SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FIRST AND SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35:
All documents concerning contracts , agreements or other understandings concerning the JooJoo. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein. Fusion Garage objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege , the work-product doctrine, and other applicable privileges.

Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information the 9 disclosure of which would.violate the privacy rights of individuals who are not parties to this 10 action.
11

Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous

12 as to the term "understandings." Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Fusion Garage has complied with the-Court's Order of April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 61) to produce documents responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: All documents concerning sales, orders, or pre-orders of the JooJoo. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein. 19
20

Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the, ground that it seeks information the disclosure of which would violate the privacy rights of individuals who are not parties to this action.
Fusion Garage further objects that this request seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.

21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
04049 . 51632/3540420.1

Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Fusion Garage has complied with the Court's Order of April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 61) to produce documents responsive to this request.

-25SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FIRST AND SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD.

I

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein. Fusion Garage objects that this request seeks highly proprietary information and/or source

2 3

4 code , but Plaintiffs have not submitted an adequate Statement of Misappropriated Business Ideas 5 6 7 8 in accordance with the Court's Order of April 9, 2010. (See Dkt. 62). Fusion Garage further objects to this. request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous. Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as there is no evidence that Plaintiffs contributed any source code , object codes, or executables.
Fusion Garage further objects that the request is overbroad , unduly burdensome, and harassing.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39:
All documents concerning plans for and selection of a brand name for the JooJoo or a related domain name.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39:
Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein. Fusion Garage objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information protected by

18 the attorney-client privilege , the work-product doctrine , and other applicable privileges. 19 20
21 22 23 .24

Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Fusion Garage has complied with the Court's Order of April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 61) to produce documents responsive to this request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40:
All documents that mention both (a) the JooJoo and (b) the CrunchPad, TechCrunch, or

.25

26 Michael Arrington. 27 28
04049. 51632 /3540420.1

-27SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FIRST AND SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD.

I

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40:
Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein. Fusion Garage objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege , the work-product doctrine, and other applicable privileges.

Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome. and overbroad with respect to scope.
Fusion Garage further objects that this request is vague , ambiguous, and incomprehensible, particularly in light of the definitions . of the terms this request uses. Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections , Fusion Garage has complied with the Court's Order of April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 61) to produce documents responsive to this request, to the extent that such documents do not disclose Fusion Garage's highly proprietary information.

13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
04049 . 51632 /3540420.1

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.41: All drafts and internal communications concerning or. leading up to your November 17, 2009 email to Michael Arrington, contained within Exhibit D to the Complaint. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Fusion Garage incorporates each of its General Objections as expressly set forth therein. Fusion Garage objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information protected by. the attorney-client privilege , the work-product doctrine , and other applicable privileges.
Fusion Garage further objects to this request on the ground that it is vague , ambiguous and incomprehensible with respect to those communications "leading up to" the November 17, 2009 email Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Fusion Garage has complied with the Court's Order of April 9, 2010 (Dkt. 61) to produce documents responsive to this request.

-28SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FIRST AND SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD.