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

Filing 225

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by CrunchPad, Inc., Fusion Garage PTE. LTD, Interserve, Inc.. (Pennypacker, Evette) (Filed on 12/1/2011)

1

5

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
David S. Bloch (SBN: 184530)
[e-mail]
J. Caleb Donaldson (SBN: 257271)
[e-mail]
101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

6

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

7

15

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Claude M. Stern (Bar No. 96737)
[e-mail]
Evette D. Pennypacker (Bar No. 203515)
[e-mail]
Thomas R. Watson (Bar No. 227264)
[e-mail]
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Joshua L. Sohn (Bar No. 250105)
[e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

16

Attorneys for Defendant

2
3
4

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

20

TECHCRUNCH, INC. (f/k/a INTERSERVE,
INC.), and CRUNCHPAD, INC.,

Case No. C 09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)

21

FURTHER JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT

Plaintiffs,
22
vs.

Case Management Conference Set for:

23
FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD.,

Date:
Time:
Place:

24
Defendant.

December 8, 2011
10:00 A.M.
Courtroom 3, 17th Floor

25
26
27
28

Pursuant to the Court’s March 31 and November 21, 2011, Orders—and in conformance with
Local Civil Rule 16-10(d) and the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of
04049.51632/4486099.1

1
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)

1

California—TechCrunch, Inc., CrunchPad, Inc., and Fusion Garage Pte. Ltd., now submit this

2

Updated Joint Case Management Statement. This Statement supplements the Joint Case

3

Management Statement the parties filed on March 24, 2011 (Docket No. 198).

4

1.

5
6

Facts
A.

Plaintiffs’ Statement

Starting in the fall of 2008, Defendant Fusion Garage Pte. Ltd. and Plaintiffs TechCrunch,

7

Inc. and CrunchPad, Inc. worked together to develop and market a low-cost, touch-screen, web-

8

browsing tablet computer called the CrunchPad. Plaintiffs conceived the CrunchPad device,

9

independently developed its original prototype, and contributed substantial intellectual and financial

10

resources at all stages of the product’s development and preparation for launch. In reliance on the

11

parties’ proclaimed joint venture, Plaintiffs eschewed working with others, invested over $400,000,

12

fronted costs to Fusion Garage, and even brought Fusion Garage staff to its Silicon Valley offices to

13

move the project forward.

14

Fusion Garage led Plaintiffs to believe that they were collaborators working earnestly on a

15

common joint venture. This turned out to be false. At some point, and certainly by September 2009,

16

Fusion Garage secretly decided to “divorce” itself from Plaintiffs. On November 17, 2009,

17

seemingly “out of the blue,” as it claimed, Fusion Garage unilaterally cancelled the joint venture

18

between itself and Plaintiffs, announcing that it would exploit for its sole benefit the CrunchPad

19

business and all that the parties had done together, thus cutting Plaintiffs out of the project and its

20

rewards. Behind the scenes, Fusion Garage had secretly hired a public relations firm to orchestrate

21

the divorce, engaged alternative manufactures, and developed an alternate product name—JooJoo—

22

and registered thejoojoo.com. All the while, Fusion Garage told Plaintiffs that the joint project was

23

on schedule.

24

In a communication to its public relations firm, McGrath Powers, Fusion Garage

25

acknowledged having “strung along” Plaintiffs, confided that it was getting harder to “play along,”

26

and predicted “a massive blowup” upon Plaintiffs’ receipt of its November 17, 2009 cancellation

27

email. Later, Fusion Garage dismissed concerns of its public relations firm about legal action by

28

explaining “everything [had] been verbal” and nothing “shared via email etc.”
04049.51632/4486099.1

2
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)

1

Fusion Garage’s misconduct became public after it abruptly “divorced” TechCrunch and

2

CrunchPad and tried to launch the JooJoo on its own. Rather than being released as a category-

3

defining and wholly novel (if imperfect) tablet computer more than six months before Apple’s iPad

4

and with the enthusiastic support of the most influential and widely read tech blog in Silicon Valley,

5

the JooJoo launched into the toxic environment created by Fusion Garage’s egregious misconduct.

6

Fusion Garage’s missteps after its secret divorce caused the once-promising project to fail, and it

7

discontinued JooJoo sales a year after launch, in November 2010. Fusion Garage then withdrew

8

from the public eye, engaged in a six-month “guerilla marketing” campaign as “TabCo,” and then

9

relaunched a new version of the CrunchPad/JooJoo as the “Grid10” in 2011.

10

Whether the product was called the CrunchPad, the JooJoo, or the Grid10, Fusion Garage

11

and Plaintiffs were joint venturers from 2008 to November 2009. Fusion Garage breached its

12

fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs with malice, “stringing along” Plaintiffs with fraudulent promises and

13

deceitful conduct so it could usurp the CrunchPad business for itself—and it did so only to drive the

14

project’s value into the ground with its post-rupture ineptitude. Plaintiffs bring this suit to seek

15

redress for Fusion Garage’s malicious misconduct. They seek substantial damages including a

16

proportion of the value of the joint venture when Fusion Garage usurped it and thus before Fusion

17

Garage dissipated that substantial value with its subsequent misfires.

18
19

B.

Defendant’s Statement

This lawsuit arises out of a failed merger and the attempt by two Michael Arrington-

20

controlled entities—one of which, CrunchPad, Inc., is a shell that has never done business, has no

21

assets and no capitalization—to salvage Arrington’s reputation after he found out that he was never

22

going to be able to deliver on his promise of a “dead simple web tablet for $200.” Arrington is using

23

the façade of his alter-egos and this lawsuit to appropriate for himself the fruit of the time,

24

innovation, creativity, know-how and boldness that Fusion Garage and its personnel have shown and

25

put into its web tablet when Plaintiffs themselves did not want to take the risk.

26

Plaintiffs’ 24-page Amended Complaint contains misstatements and offers a false account of

27

the parties’ dealings with each other. As Plaintiffs have already been forced to admit in this case

28

under oath, both Plaintiffs and Fusion Garage recognized from the outset that the only possible way
04049.51632/4486099.1

3
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)

1

Plaintiffs and Fusion Garage could work together would be through a merger of their corporate

2

entities: “The first meeting I [Michael Arrington] had with Chandra was, I believe, in – I believe in

3

October . . . At that meeting, we, Chandra and I, agreed that the only way to work together was a

4

merger of the entities.”

5

Fusion Garage developed its web tablet, the JooJoo, on its own while Plaintiffs repeatedly

6

stated that the “CrunchPad” was dead and surreptitiously work to torpedo Fusion Garage’s relations

7

with its part suppliers and Fusion Garage’s own employees. In fact, Plaintiffs desired to “poach”

8

Fusion Garage’s employees and let Fusion Garage “die” as late as August 2009.

9

While Fusion Garage continued to negotiate with Plaintiffs and hold out hope that their own

10

fundraising efforts would improve so that the parties could eventually merge, Fusion Garage began

11

laying the groundwork to sell the its device on its own should the prospective merger with

12

CrunchPad, Inc. fail or never materialize. By mid-November 2009, it became clear to Fusion

13

Garage that the merger was not going to go forward. Plaintiffs’ fundraising efforts had failed

14

miserably and repeatedly, and they no longer wanted to take the great financial risk associated with

15

bringing the web tablet to market. Fusion Garage realized that its web tablet would never see the

16

light of day if Fusion Garage continued to wait to be merged with CrunchPad, Inc. After almost a

17

year of unfruitful merger negotiations, it was time for Fusion Garage to break off negotiations and

18

launch its device on its own.

19

In an effort to soften the blow and avoid confrontation, Fusion Garage wrote to Plaintiffs on

20

November 17 that Fusion Garage’s investors were unwilling to go through with the merger and that

21

he had no choice but to follow their directives. Plaintiffs attempt to distort Fusion Garage’s

22

communications during this time period fails to account for Plaintiffs’ history of using the

23

TechCrunch blog as a weapon against those whom Arrington dislikes or those who disagree with

24

him. For instance, when faced with a balky screen vendor for one of his early CrunchPad

25

prototypes, Arrington had expressed his frustration to his colleagues as follows: “fuck that, bulldoze

26

around this problem. find out who their investors are . . . i may just trash them on techcrunch.

27

dicks.” When Fusion Garage’s proposed part supplier refused to budge on the NRE charge,

28

Arrington had one of his associates tell Pegatron that he would drop a “hail storm of negative press”
04049.51632/4486099.1

4
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)

1

on Pegatron and otherwise use the bad press against Pegatron as “negative guns”—and to put them

2

in his “cross-hairs”—if it did not capitulate to Arrington’s desires. Fusion Garage had no desire to

3

be likewise “trashed” on the widely-read TechCrunch blog simply for voicing its growing doubts

4

that the merger would go through or that Arrington’s fundraising efforts would improve.

5

Fusion Garage formally launched its device under the “JooJoo” brand two weeks later, on

6

December 7, 2009. Arrington thereafter went on a coordinated campaign to disparage Fusion

7

Garage and its CEO on his blog and in private to ensure that the JooJoo would fail. Indeed, Fusion

8

Garage made no profit from the JooJoo, which was discontinued in late 2010.

9

Plaintiffs now claim that they are not only entitled to the fruits – which do not exist – of the

10

trivial JooJoo sales, but also the fruits of the entirely different Fusion Garage product called the

11

Grid10, launched almost 2 years after the end of the alleged joint venture between TechCrunch and

12

Fusion Garage. This fails for a variety of reasons, both legal and factual. Grid 10 has nothing to do

13

with the alleged joint venture. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs continue to grasp at straws, seeking profits

14

where none exist. If an accounting were done today between TechCrunch and Fusion Garage,

15

TechCrunch would owe Fusion Garage, not the other way around.

16

Finally, Plaintiffs fail to note that they have lost all their witnesses. Arrington was fired from

17

AOL, and Heather Harde – TechCrunch’s CEO – has reportedly tendered her resignation and AOL

18

is in deep negotiations to persuade her to stay.1 Despite the fact that Plaintiffs case is in a shambles,

19

they continue to seek a pot of gold where there is none. This lawsuit should end.

20

2.

21

The legal issues include, without limitation:

22

Legal Issues

1.

23

On Plaintiffs’ first claim for relief, whether Fusion Garage has breached its

fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs;

24

2.

On Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief, whether Fusion Garage engaged in

25

fraud or deceit by making misrepresentations and false promises to Plaintiffs concerning the

26

CrunchPad project;

27
28

1

Plaintiffs state that this characterization is Fusion Garage’s, not AOL’s. Rumors notwithstanding,
TechCrunch and CrunchPad confirm that Ms. Harde remains employed by TechCrunch as of today’s
date. Nor is her testimony, or that of Mr. Arrington, likely to change regardless of where they are
employed.
04049.51632/4486099.1
5
09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

1

3.

On Plaintiffs’ third claim for relief, whether Fusion Garage engaged in

2

unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. C. §§ 17200 et seq.

3

3.

4

Prior and pending motions include:
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery filed on
December 28,2009 (Dkt. 11)

5

Motions

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Granted in part and denied
in part on January 7, 2010
(Dkt. 19)

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss filed on January 28, Granted in part and denied
2010 (Dkt. 20)
in part on August 24, 2010
(Dkt. 162)
Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order filed on
February 5, 2010 (Dkt. 23)

Granted on April 9, 2010
(Dkt. 62)

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed
on February 22, 2010 (Dkt. 26)

Granted in part and denied
in part on August 24, 2010
(Dkt. 162)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Shorten Time on Preliminary
Injunction Motion filed on February 22, 2010 (Dkt.
27)

Denied on March 9, 2010
(Dkt. 33).

Defendant’s Motion to Reset Preliminary
Injunction Hearing to May 6, 2010 filed on March
30, 2010 (Dkt. 40)
Defendant's Amended Motion to Reset the
Preliminary Injunction Hearing to May 27, 2010
filed on April 1, 2010 (Dkt. 42)

Granted on April 1, 2010
(Dkt. 45)

Defendant’s First Motion to Compel Documents
filed on April 2, 2010 (Dkt. 47)

Granted in part and denied
in part on April 9, 2010
(Dkt. 61)

Defendant’s Motion to Shorten Time on Motion to
Compel filed on April 2, 2010 (Dkt. 49)

Granted on April 6, 2010
(Dkt. 55)

Denied on April 1, 2010
(Dkt. 45)

Plaintiff’s First Motion to Compel and to Enforce
Granted on April 30, 2010
McGrath/Power Public Relations Subpoena filed on (Dkt. 90)
April 5, 2010 (Dkt. 53)
Plaintiff’s Cross Motion to Shorten Time and
Response to Defendant’s Motion to Shorten Time
filed on April 5, 2010 (Dkt. 54)

Granted in part and denied
in part on April 7, 2010
(Dkt. 57)

Defendant’s Motion to Unseal Document from
Transcript of TechCrunch 30(B)(6) Deposition
filed on April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 66)

Granted on May 27, 2010
(Dkt. 147)

28
04049.51632/4486099.1

6
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)

1

Defendant’s Motion to Seal filed on April 23, 2010
(Dkt. 69)

Granted on April 26, 2010
(Dkt. 74)

Defendant’s Motion to Shorten Time on its Motion
to Remove Confidentiality Designation filed on
April 23, 2010 (Dkt. 70)

Order to Show Cause,
finding as moot entered on
April 28, 2010 (Dkt. 88)

2
3
4

Order Dissolving April 28,
2010 Order to Show Cause
entered on April 30, 2010
(Dkt. 100)

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Defendant’s Motion to Seal Document filed on
April 26, 2010 (Dkt. 76)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal re Plaintiff’s Opposition
Resolved by Stipulation
to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss filed on April 26, filed on September 13, 2010
2010 (Dkt. 82)
(Dkt. 166)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal re Reply in Support of
Motion to Enforce Subpoena filed on April 26,
2010 (Dkt. 84)

Granted on April 27, 2010
(Dkt. 86)

Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Protective Order
filed on April 30, 2010 (Dkt. 93)

Granted in Part, Denied in
Part on October 6, 2010
(Dkt. 184)

Defendant’s Motion to Seal Document filed on
April 30, 2010 (Dkt. 95)

Granted on April 30, 2010
(Dkt. 99)

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Extrinsic
Speaking Evidence Submitted in Support of Their
Opposition to Dismiss filed on May 3, 2010 (Dkt.
103)

Granted in part and denied
in part on August 24, 2010
(Dkt. 162)

Defendant’s Motion to Seal Document filed on
May 3, 2010 (Dkt. 104)

Resolved by Stipulation
filed on September 13, 2010
(Dkt. 166)

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Resolved by Stipulation
filed on September 13, 2010
(Dkt. 166)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages re Granted on May 6, 2010
Reply in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion (Dkt. 112)
filed on May 3, 2010 (Dkt. 108)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental
Declarations in Further Support of Plaintiff’s
Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed on May 11,
2010 (Dkt. 117)

Granted on September 13,
2010 (Dkt. 165)

Defendant’s Motion to File Under Seal its Notice of Granted on May 18, 2010
Further Challenges to Confidentiality Designations (Dkt. 140)
from Transcript of TechCrunch 30(B)(6)
Deposition filed on May 12, 2010 (Dkt. 124)
04049.51632/4486099.1

7
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal re Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel De-Designation of Documents
filed on May 13, 2010 (Dkt. 132)

Granted on December 27,
2010 (Dkt. 193)

Defendant’s Motion to File Under Seal filed on
June 3, 2010 (Dkt. 153)

Granted on December 22,
2010 (Dkt. 192)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Withheld Information
and Documents filed on September 7, 2010 (Dkt.
164)

Granted in Part, Denied in
Part on October 6, 2010
(Dkt. 184)

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint filed on September 27, 2010 (Dkt. 181)

Denied on February 9, 2011
(Dkt. 194)

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss and Strike Portions of
Fusion Garage's Answer and Counterclaim filed on
March 25, 2011 (Dkt. 203)
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Amended Answer filed
on April 29, 2011 (Dkt. 208)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel filed on September
9, 2011 (Dkt. 212)

Granted on March 28, 2011
(Dkt. 204)
Denied on May 2, 2011
(Dkt. 209)
Hearing set for Jan. 3, 2012
(Dkt. 224)

12

The parties anticipate filing further dispositive motions.

13

Plaintiffs may seek the Court’s aid in conducting foreign discovery.

14

4.

15

Fusion Garage intends to amend its Answer to seek an accounting if a joint venture is found

16

Amendment of Pleadings

by the jury.

17

5.

18

The parties exchanged initial disclosures in March 2010.

19

6.

20

Disclosures

Discovery
A.

Status of Discovery

21

To date, Plaintiffs have served four sets of interrogatories, and eight sets of requests for

22

production of documents. Plaintiffs have also served subpoenas upon third parties PayPal, Inc.,

23

McGrath Power, and Fusion Garage, Inc. Plaintiffs have deposed Fusion Garage CEO Chandra

24

Rathakrishnan for one day, although the parties have agreed that Mr. Rathakrishnan will sit for an

25

additional day of deposition. Plaintiffs have produced over 26,000 pages of documents in response

26

to Defendant’s document requests. Additional third-party discovery and most of the deposition

27

planning in the case has been stayed pending settlement discussions.

28
04049.51632/4486099.1

8
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)

1

Defendant has also served interrogatories, requests for production, and third party subpoenas.

2

It has deposed Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) designee, Michael Arrington, as well as Heather Harde,

3

Brian Kindle, and Keith Teare. Fusion Garage anticipates several more depositions of third party

4

witnesses, including without limitation Nik Cubrilovic, Louis Monier, Ron Conway, First Round

5

Capital, SoftTech VC, and AOL. It also anticipates seeking to depose Michael Arrington, who is no

6

longer employed by TechCrunch or CrunchPad.

7

The prior expert discovery cutoff date of December 1, 2011 has been suspended by the

8

Court’s Order of November 21, 2011 (Docket No. 222). That same Order also directed that all other

9

scheduling issues are to be re-visited at the December 8, 2011 Case Management Conference.

10

B.

11

Scope of Anticipated Discovery

Together, the parties anticipate the further depositions of:

12

•

Michael Arrington

13

•

First Round Capital

14

•

SoftTech VC

15

•

Ron Conway

16

•

Louis Monier

17

•

Nik Cubrilovic

18

•

AOL 30(b)(6)

19

•

Fusion Garage

20

•

McGrath Power

21

•

Chandrasekar Rathakrishnan

22

In addition, both Plaintiffs and Fusion Garage anticipate that further discovery will need to

23

include, at a minimum, a supplemental production of relevant documents by both parties, and

24

discovery related to damages. Plaintiffs will also seek to depose and obtain documents from Fusion

25

Garage’s foreign investors in Singapore and elsewhere.2
Topics of discovery include, without limitation (Fusion Garage denies that all these topics are

26
27

relevant and reserves its right to object accordingly at the proper time):

28

2

Fusion Garage does not agree that such discovery is relevant or appropriate. Fusion Garage also
reserves objections to additional depositions, if any, sought by Plaintiff.
04049.51632/4486099.1
9
09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

1

o The relationship between Plaintiffs and Fusion Garage and the circumstances

2

concerning their falling out;

3

o Fusion Garage’s plans for its collaboration with Plaintiffs, including

4

communications with others on that subject;

5

o Fusion Garage’s plans for ending its collaboration with Plaintiffs, including

6

communications with others on that subject;

7

o Contradictions between statements Fusion Garage made to Plaintiffs and

8

statements it made to others, including its actual and prospective investors;

9

o Contradictions between statements Fusion Garage made to Plaintiffs and facts

10

(including intent) that Fusion Garage knew or had reason to be aware of;

11

o Fusion Garage’s plans for development of the CrunchPad, the JooJoo, and the

12

Grid 10;

13

o The relationship of the JooJoo and the Grid 10 to the CrunchPad, including the

14

relationship between the respective heritages, conceptions, designs,

15

developments, marketing or marketing plans, production or production plans, and

16

sales or sales plans of those devices;

17

o Fusion Garage’s current business activities and product development—including

18

the design, production, and marketing of the Grid 10 project—and their

19

relationship to the CrunchPad project;

20

o Fusion Garage’s work related to the CrunchPad, JooJoo, and Grid 10, including

21

its interactions with third parties;

22

o Fusion Garage’s business and marketing plans for the CrunchPad, JooJoo, and

23

Grid 10;

24

o Fusion Garage’s sources of investment, representations and agreements respecting

25

investment, and valuation, up to the time Fusion Garage usurped the CrunchPad

26

joint venture;

27

o Fusion Garage’s revenues, costs and expenses, profits, cash flow, and transfers of

28

funds and other assets;
04049.51632/4486099.1

10
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)

1

o Fusion Garage’s relationship to other companies with respect to the CrunchPad,

2

JooJoo, Grid 10, and any other work or projects related to the CrunchPad, JooJoo,

3

and Grid 10;

4

o Fusion Garage’s breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and unfair competition;

5

o Fusion Garage’s design, development, manufacture, sales, and marketing of the

6

JooJoo;

7

o Plaintiffs’ involvement, or lack thereof, in the design, development, manufacture,

8

sales, and marketing of the JooJoo;

9

o Whether the parties’ relationship was a failed merger versus a joint venture;

10

o Whether Fusion Garage engaged in fraud or unfair business practices; and

11

o If liability is found, whether Plaintiffs suffered damages.

12

Fusion Garage states that Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery into current and/or future product

13

offerings, suppliers, and investors—particularly with respect to the Grid10—is irrelevant to any

14

claim or defense raised in the Amended Complaint for past products, conduct and/or damages.

15

7.

16

At this time Plaintiffs still do not have a complete calculation of damages to which they may

Relief

17

be entitled. Plaintiffs’ calculation of damages is in part dependent upon information to be obtained

18

from discovery during the course of this action and through consultation with experts. But Plaintiffs

19

are aware of at least the following damages:

20

Plaintiffs will argue that TechCrunch is entitled to damages including:

21

65% of the value of the parties’ CrunchPad joint venture at the time that Fusion

22

Garage terminated the venture, which corresponds to the valuation of Fusion Garage

23

at the time (given that Fusion Garage was then entirely devoted to the joint venture),

24

which Mr. Rathakrishnan has estimated at $40 to $50 million;

25

the amount of money, approximately $400,000, that TechCrunch spent in furtherance

26

of the parties’ CrunchPad project;

27

65% of profits related to the sale of Fusion Garage’s tablet computers;

28
04049.51632/4486099.1

11
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)

1

punitive damages, in an amount that a jury will determine, based on Fusion Garage’s

2

malicious and fraudulent conduct alleged in this case;

3

the lost value of other opportunities missed because of collaboration with Fusion

4

Garage;

5

the value of Fusion Garage’s unjust enrichment; and

6

the value of the benefits Fusion Garage received from TechCrunch in conjunction

7

with the CrunchPad project and in conjunction with the JooJoo and the Grid10.

8

CrunchPad, Inc. is entitled to damages encompassed under (b) through (f) above.

9

Fusion Garage denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any damages even if liability is found,

10

particularly because: (1) Fusion Garage made no profit from the sale of the JooJoo; (2) Plaintiffs

11

would owe money to Fusion Garage after an accounting; and (3) there is no foundation for the

12

alleged joint venture’s purported valuation at the time of the alleged dissolution.

13

8.

14

The parties engaged in lengthy settlement discussions and reached a settlement in principle

15

Settlement and ADR

that was not ultimately consummated.

16

9.

17

The parties are not presently in a position to address whether it is feasible or desirable to

Narrowing of Issues

18

bifurcate issues for trial, or whether it is possible to reduce the length of trial by stipulation, use of

19

summaries, or other expedited means of presenting issues. The parties do expect to narrow the

20

issues for trial by dispositive motions.

21

10.

22

The parties propose the following case schedule:

Scheduling

23
24
25
26
27
28

Event
Plaintiffs’ Responses To
Defendant’s Requests for
Production (Set 4),
Interrogatories (Set 3), and
Requests for Admission (Set
1)

Original Date
Various

Proposed New Date
December 16, 2011

Defendant’s Responses To
04049.51632/4486099.1

12
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)

1

Event
Plaintiffs’ Requests For
Production (Set 8) and
Interrogatories (Set 4)
Fact Discovery Cut-Off and
Last Day To Complete
Depositions of:
• Michael Arrington
• First Round Capital
• SoftTech VC
• Ron Conway
• Louis Monier
• Nik Cubrilovic
• AOL 30(b)(6)
• Fusion Garage
• McGrath Power
• Chandrasekar
Rathakrishnan
Plaintiffs’ Expert
Disclosures and Reports
Defendant’s Expert
Disclosures and Reports
Expert Discovery Cutoff
Pretrial Motions

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Pretrial Statements
Pretrial Conference
Trial

16
17

Original Date

Proposed New Date

October 17, 2011

February 24, 2012

November 10, 2011

March 9, 2012

December 1, 2011

March 23, 2012

January 19, 2012
February 23, 2012
(last date to hear)
May 3, 2012
May 17, 2012
May 29, 2012

April 6, 2012
March 29, 2012 (last
day to hear)
May 31, 2012
June 14, 2012
TBD

18

11.

19

All parties have requested a jury trial.

20

The parties expect trial to last eight court days.

21

The parties propose a trial on or around June 26, 2012, or otherwise as the Court’s schedule

22

Trial

permits.

23

12.

24

The parties have no other matters to raise with the Court at this time.

25

Other Matters to Facilitate Just, Speedy and Inexpensive Disposition

Dated: December 1, 2011

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

26
27

By:

28
04049.51632/4486099.1

/s/
David S. Bloch
J. Caleb Donaldson
13

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)

1

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
TECHCRUNCH, INC. and
CRUNCHPAD, INC.

2
3
4

Dated: December 1, 2011

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP

5
By:

6
7
8

/s/
Claude M. Stern
Evette C. Pennypacker
Thomas R. Watson
Attorneys for Defendant
FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD.

9
10

CONCURRENCE IN FILING

11
12

David S. Bloch has consented to the filing of this pleading and gave me consent to

13

electronically sign it on his behalf.

14

Dated: December 1, 2011

/s/
Evette D. Pennypacker

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
04049.51632/4486099.1

14
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

09-cv-5812 RS (PSG)