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

Filing 24

Declaration of Patrick Doolittle in Support of 23 MOTION for Protective Order Pending Plaintiff's Identification of its Allegedly Misappropriated Trade Secrets; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed byFusion Garage PTE. LTD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 23 ) (Doolittle, Patrick) (Filed on 2/5/2010)

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

Doc. 24

Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document24

Filed02/05/10 Page1 of 3

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP Claude M. Stern (Bar No. 96737) [e-mail] 2 Patrick Doolittle (Bar No. 203659) [e-mail] 3 50 California Street, 22nd Floor 4 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 5 6 Attorneys for Defendant Fusion Garage PTE. Ltd 7 8 9 10 11 INTERSERVE, INC. dba TECHCRUNCH, a Delaware corporation, and CRUNCHPAD, 12 INC., a Delaware corporation, 13 14 vs. Plaintiffs, CASE NO. C 09-cv-5812 JW (PVT) DECLARATION OF PATRICK DOOLITTLE IN SUPPORT OF FUSION GARAGE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Date: March 16, 2010 Time: 10:00 a.m. Judge: Hon. Patricia Trumbull UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

15 FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD, a Singapore company, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
04049.51632/3313668.1

Case No. C 09-cv-5812 JW DECLARATION OF PATRICK DOOLITTLE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Dockets.Justia.com

Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document24

Filed02/05/10 Page2 of 3

1 2

I, PATRICK C. DOOLITTLE declare as follows: 1. I am a member of the bar of the State of California and a partner in Quinn Emanuel

3 Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, attorneys for Defendant Fusion Garage. Unless otherwise noted, 4 I make this declaration of personal knowledge, and if called and sworn as a witness, I could and 5 would testify competently thereto. 6 2. Shortly after the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery, I called

7 David Bloch, counsel for Plaintiffs. I believe I called him the day after the Court issued its order 8 granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery. I asked that 9 Plaintiffs identify the trade secrets that they alleged were misappropriated prior to taking 10 discovery regarding the Defendant's trade secrets. Plaintiffs' counsel's position was that Code of 11 Civil Procedure 2019.210 did not apply because they were not alleging a trade secrets claim. 12 Accordingly, he declined to identify Plaintiffs' trade secrets. 13 3. Plaintiffs have now served two sets of requests for production and one set of

14 interrogatories on Defendant Fusion Garage. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's First Set of 15 Requests for Production is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' 16 First Set of Interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' 17 Second Set of Requests for Production is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
04049.51632/3313668.1

4.

Among the requests for production that Plaintiffs have served are the following:

Request for Production No. 13: All documents concerning the design, development or writing of software for the JooJoo. Request for Production No. 15: All documents concerning the design of the JooJoo, including but not limited to industrial design, hardware, software, feature set, and user interface. Request for Production No. 20: All documents concerning user documentation for the JooJoo. Request for Production No. 24: All documents concerning plans for the development, design, manufacturing, marketing, advertising and promotion, and distribution of the JooJoo. Request for Production No. 33: All documents evidencing or concerning communications concerning intellectual property in the JooJoo. Request for Production No. 38: A complete copy of all versions of the source codes, object codes, and executables for the JooJoo.
Case No. C 09-cv-5812 JW -1DECLARATION OF PATRICK DOOLITTLE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document24

Filed02/05/10 Page3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
04049.51632/3313668.1

Request for Production No. 46: All design documents, bill of materials, and other technical materials concerning the JooJoo. 5. Plaintiffs have also served discovery requests with the defined term "CrunchPad."

That defined term, however, appears designed to encompass Fusion Garage's product. The definition reads "The term `CrunchPad' means any conception, version or prototype of the touchscreen based computer developed by Plaintiff or Defendant or in collaboration between Plaintiff and Defendant, or identified (internally or externally) as a CrunchPad, whether or not that conception version or prototype was publically exhibited." (Emphasis added). 6. Plaintiffs' complaint alleges claims for violation of the Lanham Act (false

advertising), breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of business ideas, fraud and deceit, and unfair competition. Given Plaintiffs claims in this case, I do not understand why they are seeking discovery regarding Fusion Garage's proprietary information, including source code. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 5th day of February 2010 at San Francisco, California. /s/ Patrick C. Doolittle

Case No. C 09-cv-5812 JW -2DECLARATION OF PATRICK DOOLITTLE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER