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

Filing 212

MOTION to Compel filed by Fusion Garage PTE. LTD. Motion Hearing set for 10/18/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. Responses due by 9/23/2011. Replies due by 9/30/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. 1, # 4 Affidavit Sohn, # 5 Exhibit Sohn Ex. 1, # 6 Exhibit Sohn Ex. 2)(Pennypacker, Evette) (Filed on 9/9/2011)

SOHN
EXHIBIT 1

quinn emanuel trial lawyers | san francisco
50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
[phone]
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
[e-mail]

December 21, 2010
Matthew Scherb, Esq.
Winston & Strawn LLP
101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Re:

TechCrunch, Inc. et al. v. Fusion Garage PTE. Ltd., No. 09-5812: Summary of Meetand-Confer

Dear Matt:
I write to memorialize the telephonic meet-and-confer that we had this morning.
Regarding Request Nos. 97-100, 102, and 103 from Fusion Garage’s Third Set of Requests from
Production – which involve the alleged partnership and litigation between TechCrunch and
Jason Calacanis – you stated that Plaintiffs are unwilling to produce documents responsive to
these requests. Plaintiffs’ position is that TechCrunch’s course of dealing with Mr. Calacanis is
not relevant to proving the terms of its alleged relationship with Fusion Garage. As set forth in
Tom Watson’s letter of December 1, 2010, Fusion Garage disagrees. Rather, Fusion Garage
believes that TechCrunch’s custom and practice with alleged “partners” such as Mr. Calacanis is
relevant to determining whether TechCruch intended to form, or in fact formed, a partership or
joint venture with Fusion Garage. Thus, the parties are at an impasse about whether Plaintiffs
must produce documents in response to Request Nos. 97-100, 102, and 103.
Request No. 93 seeks all documents and communications relating to AOL’s acquisition of
TechCrunch. In response to your position that this request is overly broad and unduly
burdensome, I inquired whether Plaintiffs would at least agree to produce all final, signed
agreements relating to AOL’s acquisition of TechCrunch, so that we could determine whether
AOL can or must be joined as a party under the Federal Rules. You stated that you would liaise
with your client and let us know whether Plaintiffs agree to produce this narrower subset of
documents.
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
NEW YORK | 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | Akasaka Twin Tower Main Bldg., 6th Floor, 17-22 Akasaka 2-Chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-0052, Japan | TEL [phone]
MANNHEIM | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

FAX +81

3 5561-1712

Regarding Request Nos. 94-96, 101, and 104 – for which Plaintiffs have already agreed to
produce documents – I asked whether Plaintiffs could provide a date certain by which these
documents will be produced. You stated that you could not currently provide such a date but
will liaise with your client and then get back to me with a date certain for the production of these
documents.
With respect to the confidentiality designations from the depositions of Heather Harde and Brian
Kindle, you stated that Plaintiffs will de-designate all deposition material with the exception of
the testimony and exhibits that discuss Plaintiffs’ relationship with Flextronics. You stated that
Plaintiffs have a contractual duty to keep their relationship with Flextronics confidential.
However, you stated that you are willing to de-designate this Flextronics material if you receive
Flextronics’ permission to do so. Thus, you will liaise with your client to seek its permission for
you to contact Flextronics directly about de-designating the aforementioned information from the
Harde and Kindle depositions.
You agreed that you would get back to us by January 7, 2011 regarding: (a) a date certain when
Plaintiffs will produce documents in response to Request Nos. 94-96, 101, and 104; (b) whether
Plaintiffs agree to produce the aforementioned agreements between TechCrunch and AOL; and
(c) whethether you will seek Flextronics’ consent to de-designate the remaining material from
the Harde and Kindle depositions.
Please let me know if any of the statements in this letter are inconsistent with your recollection
of the meet-and-confer. Otherwise, have a great holiday season, and I look forward to hearing
from you on or before January 7.

Very truly yours,
Joshua L. Sohn
Joshua L. Sohn

04049.51632/3873426.1

2