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

Filing 213

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 212 MOTION to Compel (Stake Declaration) filed byFusion Garage PTE. LTD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Stake Exs. A-Q, # 2 Exhibit Stake Exs. R-U, # 3 Exhibit Stake Exs. V-W)(Related document(s) 212 ) (Pennypacker, Evette) (Filed on 9/9/2011)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Claude M. Stern (Bar No. 96737)
2
[e-mail]
Evette D. Pennypacker (Bar No. 203515)
3
[e-mail]
Thomas R. Watson (Bar No. 227264)
4
[e-mail]
555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th floor
5 Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
6 Facsimile: [phone]
7

Joshua L. Sohn (Bar No. 250105)
[e-mail]
8
Sam S. Stake (Bar No. 257916)
[e-mail]
9 50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
10 Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
11
Attorneys for Defendant Fusion Garage PTE Ltd.
12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16 TECHCRUNCH, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and CRUNCHPAD, INC., a
17 Delaware corporation,
18
19

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. C 09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)
DECLARATION OF SAM STAKE IN
SUPPORT OF FUSION GARAGE’S
MOTION TO COMPEL

vs.

20 FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD., a Singapore
company,
21
Defendant.
22

Date: October 18, 2011
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Judge: Hon. Paul Singh Grewal
Location: San Jose, Courtroom 5, 4th Floor

23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. C 09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)
DECLARATION OF SAM STAKE IN SUPPORT OF FUSION GARAGE’S MOTION TO COMPEL

1

DECLARATION OF SAM STAKE

2

I, Sam Stake, hereby declare as follows:

3

1.

I am an attorney in the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP,

4 counsel for Fusion Garage PTE Ltd. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this
5 declaration and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would testify to such facts under oath.
6

2.

On July 29, 2011, I sent a letter to Caleb Donaldson, counsel for Plaintiffs and

7 AOL, and requested a meet and confer regarding production of (a) the AOL-TechCrunch merger
8 agreement(s) and (b) communications between TechCrunch’s and AOL representatives before the
9 merger that AOL had withheld on attorney-client privilege and work product grounds. A true and
10 correct copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit W.
11

3.

On August 3, 2011, I met and conferred with Mr. Donaldson regarding production

12 of these documents. Thomas Watson of Quinn Emanuel also participated in the call. Mr. Watson
13 and I explained Fusion Garage’s position that these documents are relevant and not privileged, and
14 we requested their production. Mr. Donaldson informed us on the call that Plaintiffs and AOL
15 maintained their refusal to produce the requested documents because they were irrelevant and/or
16 privileged. Mr. Donaldson further stated that the privilege objection for the communications
17 exchanged between TechCrunch and AOL was proper because, from a policy perspective, an
18 acquirer must be able to evaluate the “risk and reward” of the potential acquisition. There was no
19 indication from Mr. Donaldson that these documents reflected communications for the purpose of
20 formulating a joint legal strategy for the purpose of prosecuting this litigation.
21

4.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of excerpts of a transcript of

22 the deposition of Michael Arrington, dated April 20, 2010.
23

5.

Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of email correspondence

24 from Heather Harde, dated December 18, 2008 and bearing document control numbers
25 FG00001044-49.
26

6.

Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of email correspondence

27 from Chandrasekar Rathakrishnan, dated November 13, 2008 and bearing document control
28 number FG0021636.
Case No. C 09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)
-1DECLARATION OF SAM STAKE IN SUPPORT OF FUSION GARAGE’S MOTION TO COMPEL

1

7.

Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of excerpts of a transcript of

2 the deposition of Chandrasekar Rathakrishnan, dated April 22, 2010.
3

8.

Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a TechCrunch blog post,

4 dated April 10, 2009 and available at http://techcrunch.com/2009/04/10/about-those-new5 crunchpad-pictures/ (last checked on September 8, 2011).
6

9.

Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of email correspondence

7 from Michael Arrington, dated August 14, 2009 and bearing document control number
8 TC00006550.
9

10.

Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of email correspondence

10 from Chandrasekar Rathakrishnan, dated August 3, 2009 and bearing document control number
11 TC00002431.
12

11.

Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of email correspondence

13 from Michael Arrington, dated October 22, 2008 and bearing document control number
14 TC00004107-37.
15

12.

Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of email correspondence

16 from Michael Arrington, dated December 9, 2008 and bearing document control number
17 LM00001115.
18

13.

Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of email correspondence

19 from Nik Cubrilovic, dated August 18, 2009 and bearing document control number TC0000047620 77.
21

14.

Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Supplemental

22 Response to Fusion Garage’s Interrogatories, Set Two, dated July 23, 2010.
23

15.

Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of excerpts of a transcript of

24 the deposition of Brian Kindle, dated August 19, 2010.
25

16.

Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of excerpts of a transcript

26 of the deposition of Heather Harde, dated August 11, 2010.
27

17.

Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Statement of

28 Misappropriated Business Ideas, dated April 23, 2010.
Case No. C 09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)
-2DECLARATION OF SAM STAKE IN SUPPORT OF FUSION GARAGE’S MOTION TO COMPEL

1

18.

Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Second

2 Supplemental Response to Fusion Garage’s Interrogatories, Set One, dated July 19, 2010.
3

19.

Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of a blog post, dated

4 November 11, 2010 and available at http://e27.sg/2010/11/11/the-joojoo-is-dead-but-fusion5 garage-plans-new-products/ (last checked on September 8, 2011).
6

20.

Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of a blog post, dated

7 November 15, 2010 and available at http://calacanis.com/2010/11/15/why-im-suing-mike8 arrington/ (last checked on September 8, 2011).
9

21.

Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of a TechCrunch blog post,

10 dated November 3, 2010 and available at http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/03/at-my-wits-end-jason11 calacanis-threatens-to-sue-us/ (last checked on September 8, 2011).
12

22.

Attached hereto as Exhibit S is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Response to

13 Fusion Garage’s Request for Production of Documents (Set Three), dated November 22, 2010.
14

23.

Attached hereto as Exhibit T is a true and correct copy of a TechCrunch blog post,

15 dated September 28, 2010 and available at http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/28/the-aol-techcrunch16 disrupt-tcdisrup-videos-tctv/ (last checked on September 8, 2011).
17

24.

Attached hereto as Exhibit U is a true and correct copy of AOL’s Revised Initial

18 Privilege Log, dated August 9, 2011.
19

25.

Attached hereto as Exhibit V is a true and correct copy of AOL’s Revised

20 Supplemental Privilege Log, dated August 9, 2011.
21
22

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

23 foregoing is true and correct.
24
25

Executed on September 9, 2011, at San Francisco, California.

26
27

/s/ Sam Stake
Sam Stake

28
Case No. C 09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)
-3DECLARATION OF SAM STAKE IN SUPPORT OF FUSION GARAGE’S MOTION TO COMPEL