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

Filing 32

Declaration of Patrick C. Doolittle in Support of 31 Reply to Response to Motion, for Protective Order filed byFusion Garage PTE. LTD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 31 ) (Doolittle, Patrick) (Filed on 3/2/2010)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT B Andrew P. Bridges (SBN: 122761) Abridges @winston.com David S. Bloch (SBN: 184530) DBloch@winston.com WINSTON. & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 U San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 (415) 591-1000 Telephone: (415) 591-1400 Facsimile : Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION INTERSERVE, INC., dba TECHCRUNCH, ) Case No. CV-09-5812 JW (PVT) a Delaware corporation , and CRUNCHPAD, ) ) INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, ) a 13 VS. company, ) ) Defendant. ) FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD., a Singapore) C PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD.'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) v) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Plaintiffs Interserve, Inc. d/b/a TechCrunch and CrunchPad, Inc. hereby respond to Fusion Garage Pte. Ltd.'s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS Plaintiffs makes the following general objections, whether or not separately set forth in response to each and every instruction, definition and request for production: 1. Plaintiffs object to each request to the extent that it seeks information that is protected 23 24 25 26 27 28 by the attorney-client privilege, the work product privilege and/or any other applicable privilege. Such information will not be disclosed. Any inadvertent disclosure of such information shall not be deemed a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity recognized by statute or case law. -IPLTF. TECHCRUNCH' S RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09 -CV-5812 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2. Plaintiffs object to each request to the extent that it seeks information protected by a constitutional right of privacy or applicable privacy law. 3. Plaintiffs object to each request to the extent that it seeks information not reasonably related to the claims or defenses in this matter. 4. Plaintiffs object to each request, and the instructions contained therein, to the extent they purport to impose any requirement or discovery obligation on Plaintiffs other than those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the applicable rules of this Court. 5. Plaintiffs respond to the requests with information of which they are now aware and reserve the right to modify or amend their responses if and when they become aware of information not reflected in these responses. RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 1 All DOCUMENTS disclosing or describing each alleged "business idea" that YOU contend DEFENDANT misappropriated. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1 VD 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs object to this request as vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of "alleged `business idea."' Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests seeks information protected by the attorney - client privilege or the work product doctrine. Without waiving and subject to Plaintiffs' general and specific objections, Plaintiffs will produce non- privileged responsive documents , if any, within Plaintiffs ' possession , custody, or control that Plaintiffs locate after a reasonable and diligent search. REQUEST NO.2 All DOCUMENTS disclosing or describing each alleged trade secret that YOU contend DEFENDANT misappropriated. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.2 Plaintiffs do not allege misappropriation of trade secrets in their Complaint. No documents are responsive to this request. -2PLTF. TECHCRUNCH' S RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812 REQUEST NO.3 2 3 4 All DOCUMENTS disclosing or describing each alleged item of intellectual property, including , but not limited to, copyrights , trademarks , patents, or any applications thereof that YOU contend DEFENDANT misappropriated or infringed. 5 6 7 g 9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.3 Plaintiffs do not allege misappropriation of copyrights , trademarks, patents, or any applications thereof in their Complaint . Subject to this objection, Plaintiffs will produce the CRUNCHPAD trademark application . There are no other documents responsive to this request. REQUEST NO.4 10 1I All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention that PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANT entered into a partnership or joint venture. 12 PE SPONSE TO REQUEST NO.4 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Plaintiffs object that this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery because it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . Plaintiffs further object to this request as vague and ambiguous . Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, especially to the extent it seeks to discover information concerning counsel's legal conclusions regarding the partnership or joint venture between Plaintiffs and Defendant. REQUEST NO.5 All DOCUMENTS reflecting communications amongst YOUR employees or agents relating to YOUR alleged collaboration with DEFENDANT to develop the CrunchPad web tablet or any of its prototypes. 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5 Plaintiffs object to this request as vague and ambiguous as to the phrase "your alleged collaboration ." Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney - client privilege or the work product doctrine. -3TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) PLTF. TECHCRUNCH' S RESPONSE Case No. 09 -CV-5812 1 2 Without waiving and subject to Plaintiffs' general and specific objections, Plaintiffs will produce non-privileged responsive documents, if any, within Plaintiffs' possession, custody, or control that Plaintiffs locate after a reasonable and diligent search. 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 REQUEST NO. 6 All DOCUMENTS reflecting communications between YOUR employees or agents and DEFENDANT'S employees or agents relating to YOUR alleged collaboration with DEFENDANT to develop the CrunchPad web tablet or any of its prototypes. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.6 Plaintiffs object to this request as vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrase "your alleged collaboration." Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Without waiving and subject to Plaintiffs' general and specific objections, Plaintiffs will produce non-privileged responsive documents, if any, within Plaintiffs' possession, custody, or control that Plaintiffs locate after a reasonable and diligent search. REQUEST NO. 7 All DOCUMENTS reflecting communications between YOUR employees or agents and any third party relating to YOUR alleged collaboration with DEFENDANT to develop the CrunchPad web tablet or any of its prototypes. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.7 Plaintiffs object to this request as vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrase "your alleged collaboration." Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Without waiving and subject to Plaintiffs' general and specific objections, Plaintiffs will produce non-privileged responsive documents, if any, within Plaintiffs' possession, custody, or control that Plaintiffs locate after a reasonable and diligent search. REQUEST NO.8 All DOCUMENTS concerning DEFENDANT or any of its personnel. -4PLTF. TECHCRUNCH' S RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE ) Case No. 09-CV-5812 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 V) RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.8 Plaintiffs object that this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery because it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs further object to this request as vague and ambiguous. Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Without waiving and subject to Plaintiffs' general and specific objections, Plaintiffs will produce non-privileged responsive documents, if any, within Plaintiffs' possession, custody, or control that Plaintiffs locate after a reasonable and diligent search. REQUEST NO.9 All DOCUMENTS relating to YOUR projected revenues, expenses, or profits from any projected sales of the CrunchPad web tablet. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.9 Plaintiffs object to this request as vague and ambiguous with respect to "projected ... expenses" and "projected sales". Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, and also to the extent that it prematurely seeks expert testimony or reports. Without waiving and subject to Plaintiffs' general and specific objections, Plaintiffs will produce non-privileged responsive documents, if any, within Plaintiffs' possession, custody, or control that Plaintiffs locate after a reasonable and diligent search. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST NO. 10 All DOCUMENTS created or drafted by YOU relating to the marketing or promotion of the CrunchPad web tablet or any of its prototypes. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10 Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. . -5PLTF. TECHCRUNCH'S RESPONSE. TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812 i 1 2 Without waiving and subject to Plaintiffs ' general and specific objections , Plaintiffs will produce non-privileged responsive documents , if any, within Plaintiffs ' possession , custody, or control that Plaintiffs locate after a reasonable and diligent search. REQUEST NO. 11 All DOCUMENTS created or drafted by YOU relating to the design, technical specifications, computer code, software architecture , or hardware architecture of the CrunchPad web tablet or any of its prototypes. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11 Plaintiffs object that this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery because it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney - client privilege or the work product doctrine. Without waiving and subject to Plaintiffs ' general and specific objections , Plaintiffs will produce non-privileged responsive documents , if any, within Plaintiffs' possession, custody, or control that Plaintiffs locate after a reasonable and diligent search. REQUEST NO. 12 All DOCUMENTS containing statements made by DEFENDANT that YOU contend were false and misleading under the Lanham Act and/or the California Business and Professions Code. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12 Plaintiffs object to this request as vague and ambiguous . Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney- client privilege or the work product doctrine, in that it seeks information concerning counsel ' s assessment of and contentions concerning the facts and evidence in this case. 3 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST NO. 13 All DOCUMENTS reflecting or containing alleged promises from DEFENDANT to YOU that YOU contend DEFENDANT did not fulfill. -6PLTF. TECHCRUNCH 'S RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 V) Plaintiffs object that this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery because it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs further object to this request as vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrase "reflecting or containing alleged promises." Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, in that it seeks information concerning counsel's assessment of and contentions concerning the facts and evidence in this case. REQUEST NO. 14 All DOCUMENTS that YOU referenced or relied upon in responding to DEFENDANT'S Special Interrogatories, Set One, served concurrently herewith on PLAINTIFFS. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14 Plaintiffs object that this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery because it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs further object to this request as vague and ambiguous. Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, in that it seeks information concerning documents counsel consulted or considered important in responding to Fusion Garage's interrogatories. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST NO. 15 All DOCUMENTS reflecting blog posts or other internet postings that REFER TO the CrunchPad web tablet or any of its prototypes. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15 To the extent that this request seeks information posted on Plaintiffs' blog, Plaintiffs object that this information is equally available to Defendant. To the extent this request seeks information posted on blogs other than Plaintiffs' blog, Plaintiffs object to the extent this request seeks documents that are not in Plaintiffs' possession, custody, or control. -7PLTF. TECHCRUNCH ' S RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS ( SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812 I Plaintiffs object that this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery because it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs further object to this request as vague and ambiguous. Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Without waiving and subject to Plaintiffs' general and specific objections, Plaintiffs will produce non-privileged responsive documents, if any, within Plaintiffs' possession, custody, or control that Plaintiffs locate after a reasonable and diligent search. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N O Q/ REQUEST NO. 16 All DOCUMENTS reflecting blog posts or other internet postings that REFER TO the JooJoo device. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16 To the extent that this request seeks information posted on Plaintiffs' blog, Plaintiffs object that this information is equally available to Defendant. To the extent this request seeks information posted on blogs other than Plaintiffs' blog, Plaintiffs object to the extent this request seeks documents that are not in Plaintiffs' possession, custody, or control. 11 a^4 12 Y rl L L 13 Q' U IS o U ^ 14 3 Few 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs object that this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery because it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs further object to this request as vague and ambiguous. Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Without waiving and subject to Plaintiffs' general and specific objections, Plaintiffs will produce non-privileged responsive documents, if any, within Plaintiffs' possession, custody, or control that Plaintiffs locate after a reasonable and diligent search. -8PLTF. TECHCRUNCH'S RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812 REQUEST NO. 17 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 -9PLTF. TECHCRUNCH' S RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE ) All DOCUMENTS reflecting blog posts or other internet postings that REFER TO this litigation. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17 To the extent that this request seeks information posted on Plaintiffs' blog, Plaintiffs object that this information is equally available to Defendant. To the extent this request seeks information posted on blogs other than Plaintiffs' blog, Plaintiffs object to the extent this request seeks documents that are not in Plaintiffs' possession, custody, or control. Plaintiffs object that this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery because it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs further object to this request as vague and ambiguous. Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Without waiving and subject to Plaintiffs' general and specific objections, Plaintiffs will produce non-privileged responsive documents, if any, within Plaintiffs' possession, custody, or control that Plaintiffs locate after a reasonable and diligent search. REQUEST NO. 18 All DOCUMENTS reflecting communications between YOUR employees or agents and any third party that RELATE TO this litigation. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18 Plaintiffs object that this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery because it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs further object to this request as vague and ambiguous. Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Case No. 09 -CV-5812 I 2 Without waiving and subject to Plaintiffs' general and specific objections, Plaintiffs will produce non-privileged responsive documents , if any, within Plaintiffs ' possession , custody, or control that Plaintiffs locate after a reasonable and diligent search. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST NO. 19 All DOCUMENTS reflecting Non-Disclosure Agreements that RELATE TO YOUR alleged collaboration with DEFENDANT to develop the CrunchPad web tablet or any of its prototypes. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19 Plaintiffs object that this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery because it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . Plaintiffs further object to this request as vague and ambiguous . Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney - client privilege or the work product doctrine. Plaintiffs are not aware of any non disclosure agreements between Fusion Garage and the Plaintiffs . Without waiving and subject to Plaintiffs ' general and specific objections , Plaintiffs will produce non-privileged responsive documents, if any, within Plaintiffs' possession, custody, or control that Plaintiffs locate after a reasonable and diligent search. REQUEST NO. 20 All DOCUMENTS reflecting development agreements , partnership agreements, joint venture agreements , or other written agreements that RELATE TO YOUR alleged collaboration with DEFENDANT to develop the CrunchPad web tablet or any of its prototypes , including all drafts of such agreements. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20 Plaintiffs object that this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery because it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . Plaintiffs further object to this request as vague and ambiguous . Plaintiffs also -10PLTF. TECHCRUNCH'S RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812 I 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 object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney - client privilege or the work product doctrine. Without waiving and subject to Plaintiffs ' general and specific objections, Plaintiffs will produce non-privileged responsive documents , if any, within Plaintiffs ' possession , custody, or control that Plaintiffs locate after a reasonable and diligent search. REQUEST NO. 21 All DOCUMENTS reflecting communications between Michael Arrington and Heather Harde that RELATE TO this litigation. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21 Plaintiffs object that this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery because it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . Plaintiffs further object to this request as vague and ambiguous . Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney- client privilege or the work product doctrine. Without waiving and subject to Plaintiffs ' general and specific objections , Plaintiffs will produce non-privileged responsive documents , if any, within Plaintiffs ' possession, custody, or control that Plaintiffs locate after a reasonable and diligent search. REQUEST NO. 22 All DOCUMENTS reflecting communications between Michael Arrington and Heather Harde that RELATE TO DEFENDANT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22 Plaintiffs object that this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information outside the scope of permissible discovery because it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . Plaintiffs further object to this request as vague and ambiguous. Plaintiffs also object to the extent this requests information protected by the attorney - client privilege or the work product doctrine. -11PLTF. TECHCRUNCH'S RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 26 27 28 Case No. 09-CV-5812 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Without waiving and subject to Plaintiffs' general and specific objections, Plaintiffs will produce non-privileged responsive documents, if any, within Plaintiffs' possession, custody, or control that Plaintiffs locate after a reasonable and diligent search. Dated: February 8, 2010 WINSTON & STREWN LLP Bv: AndrevrP. Bridges David S Nicholas Short,. 9 10 11 12 SF:271233.5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -12PLTF. TECHCRUNCH'S RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?