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

Filing 48

Declaration of Patrick Doolittle in Support of 47 First MOTION to Compel Documents filed byFusion Garage PTE. LTD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 47 ) (Doolittle, Patrick) (Filed on 4/2/2010)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT A I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP Claude M. Stern (Bar No . 96737) claudestem @ quinnemanuel.com Patrick Doolittle ( Bar No . 203659) patrickdoolittle @ quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street , 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 875-6600 Telephone: Facsimile : ( 415) 875-6700 Attorneys for Defendant Fusion Garage PTE. Ltd UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 1NTERSERVE, INC. dba TECHCRUNCH, a Delaware corporation , and CRUNCHPAD, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD, a Singapore company, Defendant. CASE NO. 09-cv-5812 JW FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 17 18 19 20 PROPOUNDING PARTY: 21 22 SET NO.: 23 24 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, Defendant Fusion Garage PTE. Ltd. respectfully requests 25 that, within thirty (30) days after service of these Requests, Plaintiffs Interserve, Inc., d/b/a 26 TechCrunch, and CrunchPad, Inc. serve a written response to, and produce at the offices of 27 Defendant's counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, 50 California Street, 22nd 28 04049.51632/3272542.1 DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD PLAINTIFFS INTERSERVE, INC., TECHCRUNCH AND CRUNCHPAD, INC. ONE RESPONDING PARTY: CASE NO. 09-cv-5812 JW FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Floor , San Francisco , CA 94111, the following documents and tangible things in accordance with the following Definitions and Instructions: 1. DEFINITIONS A. "YOU", "YOUR", or "PLAINTIFFS" mean Plaintiffs Interserve, Inc., d/b/a TechCrunch , and CrunchPad , Inc., and any person acting under their direction or on their behalf, including their employees , agents, and attorneys. B. "FUSION GARAGE" or "DEFENDANT" mean defendant Fusion Garage PTE. Ltd., and any person acting under its direction or on its behalf, including its employees , agents, 9 and attorneys. 10 II 12 13 14 15 C. "DOCUMENT" shall include , without limitation, all written, graphic or otherwise recorded material , including without limitation , microfilms or other film records or impressions, tape recordings or computer cards, floppy disks or printouts, any and all papers , photographs, films, recordings , memoranda , books, records, accounts, communications , letters, telegrams, correspondence , notes of meetings , notes of conversations , notes of telephone calls, inter - office memoranda or written communications of any nature , recordings of conversations either in 16 writings or upon any mechanical or electrical recording devices, including e-mail , notes, papers, 17 reports, analyses, invoices , canceled checks or check stubs, receipts , minutes of meetings, time 18 sheets, diaries, desk calendars , ledgers, schedules , licenses, financial statements , telephone bills, 19 logs, and any differing versions of any of the foregoing , whether so denominated , formal , informal 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 04049.51632/3272542.1 or otherwise, as well as copies of the foregoing which differ in any way, including by the addition of handwritten notations or other written or printed matter of any nature, from the original. The foregoing specifically includes information stored in a computer database and capable of being generated in documentary form , such as electronic mail. D. "RELATE TO" or "REFER TO" or any variants thereof, means mentions, discusses , describes , comments on, refers, or pertains to the subject matter of the request, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part. E. "ANY" includes "any," "all," "each," and "every." CASE NO. 09-cv-5812 JW -2FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) I 2 II. INSTRUCTIONS A. Each document and thing produced in response hereto shall either be produced as it is kept in the usual course of business or shall be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories of the request in response to which it is being produced. B. A representation of inability to comply with a particular request shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry have been made. The statement shall also specify whether 7 inability to comply is because the item has never existed ; has been destroyed ; has been lost, 8 9 misplaced or stolen; or has never been , or no longer is, in your possession , custody, or control. If the item is not in your possession, custody or control , the statement shall specify the name and 10 address of any natural person or organization believed to have such possession, custody or control. II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 C. In the event that any document called for is withheld from production under a claim of privilege or other claimed immunity from discovery, such document shall be identified in writing by stating ( a) its author; (b) each addressee ; (c) each person who has received a copy of the document; (d) the document' s date, general subject matter, number of pages, attachments or appendices ; (e) the present custodian of the document ; and (f) the nature of the privilege or immunity asserted. If the document is withheld on attorney-client privilege grounds, the name of the attorney, name of the client , and basis for the claim of privilege shall also be identified. D. If you object to the production of any document on the grounds that it is protected 19 from disclosure by the attorney - client privilege , work -product doctrine , or any other privilege, you 20 are requested to identify each document for which the privilege is claimed and give all information 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 04049 . 51632 /3272542.1 required by applicable case law, including but not limited to the following: 1. 2. the name of the writer , sender , or initiator of each copy of the document; the name of the recipient, addressee, or party to whom any copy of the document was sent; 3. 4. 5. the date of each copy of the document, if any, or an estimate of its date; a statement of the basis for the claim of privilege; and a description of the document sufficient for the Court to rule on the applicability and appropriateness of the claimed privilege. -3CASE NO. 09-cv-5812 JW FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) E. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 To the extent that you object to any part of the following requests (or definitions and instructions applicable thereto), produce the documents responsive to that part of the request to which you do not object, and state specifically each ground upon which objection is made. F. In the event that any document requested herein has been lost, discarded, destroyed or transferred beyond your control, identify such document by providing as much of the following information as is possible: the type of document; the date of the document; the approximate date it was lost, discarded, destroyed or transferred; the reason or reasons for disposing of the document; the identity of all persons authorizing or having knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the disposal of the document; the identity of the person(s) who lost, discarded, destroyed or transferred the document; and the identity of all persons who have knowledge of the document's contents. G. It is your obligation to provide all responsive documents in your possession, custody or control. This includes documents in the possession of your attorneys, agents, representatives, other outside service providers and persons employed by you or your attorneys. H. The request for production of documents herein shall be deemed continuous up to and following the date of your production such that any document requested herein which is either discovered by you or comes within your possession, custody, or control subsequent to your initial production but prior to the final conclusion of this case should be produced immediately upon its discovery or receipt. III. DOCUMENTS REQUESTED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: All DOCUMENTS disclosing or describing each alleged "business idea" that YOU contend DEFENDANT misappropriated. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: All DOCUMENTS disclosing or describing each alleged trade secret that YOU contend 26 DEFENDANT misappropriated. 27 28 04049.51632/3272542.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: All DOCUMENTS disclosing or describing each alleged item of intellectual property, _q._ CASE NO. 09-cv-5812 JW FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 including , but not limited to, copyrights, trademarks, patents, or any applications thereof, that YOU contend DEFENDANT misappropriated or infringed. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention that PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANT entered into a partnership or joint venture. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All DOCUMENTS reflecting communications amongst YOUR employees or agents relating to YOUR alleged collaboration with DEFENDANT to develop the CrunchPad web tablet 9 or any of its prototypes. 10 11 12 13 14 15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All DOCUMENTS reflecting communications between YOUR employees or agents and 16 any third party relating to YOUR alleged collaboration with DEFENDANT to develop the 17 CrunchPad web tablet or any of its prototypes. 18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 19 All DOCUMENTS concerning DEFENDANT or any of its personnel. 20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 04049 . 51632 /3272542.1 All DOCUMENTS relating to YOUR projected revenues, expenses , or profits from any projected sales of the CrunchPad web tablet. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 -5CASE NO. 09-cv-5812 JW FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) I 2 3 4 5 web tablet or any of its prototypes. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: All DOCUMENTS reflecting or containing alleged promises from DEFENDANT to YOU that YOU contend DEFENDANT did not fulfill. 6 7 8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: 9 All DOCUMENTS that YOU referenced or relied upon in responding to DEFENDANT'S Special Interrogatories, Set One, served concurrently herewith on PLAINTIFFS. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: All DOCUMENTS reflecting blog posts or other internet postings that REFER TO the CrunchPad web tablet or any of its prototypes. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: All DOCUMENTS reflecting blog posts or other internet postings that REFER TO the JooJoo device. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: All DOCUMENTS reflecting blog posts or other internet postings that REFER TO this litigation. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: All DOCUMENTS reflecting communications between YOUR employees or agents and any third party that RELATE TO this litigation. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 prototypes. 27 28 04049 . 51632 /3272542.1 -6CASE NO. 09-cv-5812 JW FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) I 2 3 4 5 6 7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: All DOCUMENTS reflecting communications between Michael Arrington and Heather 8 Harde that RELATE TO this litigation. 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 By_] Patrick Doolittle Attorney for Defendant FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD DATED: January 8, 2010 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: All DOCUMENTS reflecting communications between Michael Arrington and Heather Harde that RELATE TO DEFENDANT. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 04049.51632/3272542.1 _7_ CASE NO.09-cv-5812 JW FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) EXHIBIT B quinn emanuel nd trial lawyers | silicon valley 50 California St., 22 floor, San Francisco, California 94111 | TEL: (415) 875-6600 FAX: (415) 875-6700 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO. (415) 875-6430 WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS patrickdoolittle@quinnemanuel.com March 10, 2010 David S. Bloch, Esq. Winston & Strawn, LLP 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 Re: Interserve, Inc. et al. v. Fusion Garage PTE Ltd., No. 09-5812: Meet-and-Confer Regarding Plaintiffs' Objections to Fusion Garage's Discovery Requests Dear David: I write regarding plaintiffs' objections and responses to Fusion Garage's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production, as well as plaintiffs' repeated failure to present witnesses for deposition. Given that plaintiffs have recently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, it is critically important for Fusion Garage to obtain full and complete discovery so that it can fairly oppose the preliminary injunction motion. However, plaintiffs have objected to a number of wholly proper discovery requests that seek information going to the heart of this case. Depositions Fusion Garage noticed the deposition of third-party Ron Conway, who we understand was a potential investor in CrunchPad, Inc. Plaintiffs served objections to this deposition notice on February 15, 2010, informed us that your firm would be representing Mr. Conway, and refused to present Mr. Conway for deposition. Fusion Garage also served a 30(b)(6) deposition notice on TechCrunch and set the deposition for March 9, 2010. On Friday, March 5, 2010 at approximately 6:00 p.m., I received an email from your colleague, Matthew Scherb, informing me that plaintiffs objected to the deposition notice and would not be presenting a 30(b)(6) deponent on March 9, 2010. quinn emanuel urquhart oliver & hedges, llp LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL (213) 443-3000 FAX (213) 443-3100 NEW YORK | 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100 SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL: (650) 801-5000 FAX: (650) 801-5100 CHICAGO | 250 South Wacker Drive, Suite 230, Chicago, Illinois 60606-6301 | TEL (312) 463-2961 FAX (312) 463-2962 LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL +44(0) 20 7653 2000 FAX +44(0) 20 7653 2100 TOKYO | Akasaka Twin Tower Main Bldg., 6th Fl., 17-22 Akasaka 2-Chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-0052, Japan | TEL +81 3 5561-1711 FAX +81 3 5561-1712 The primary objection that plaintiffs lodged with respect to both depositions is that Fusion Garage did not clear convenient dates for the depositions. However, given that plaintiffs have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, time is of the essence. Plaintiffs have not provided alternative dates, either. Please provide us with some proposed convenient dates for these depositions. Verifications Plaintiffs have not provided verifications to their interrogatory responses. Please provide them by Monday, March 15, 2010. Written Discovery Plaintiffs have also objected to providing information and documents in response to discovery requests that seek directly relevant information. Specifically, plaintiffs have objected to the following categories of discovery requests, each of which is wholly proper and central to the claims and defenses in this case: Requests Relating to the Alleged Partnership/Joint Venture: Plaintiffs have refused to provide documents or substantive interrogatory responses relating to the alleged partnership or joint venture that forms the heart of plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty. For instance, Plaintiffs have refused to provide any documents responsive to Request for Production No. 4, which asked for "all documents supporting your contention that Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a partnership or joint venture." Likewise, plaintiffs refused to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 9, which asked plaintiffs to identify all facts and documents supporting their contention that the parties entered into a partnership or joint venture. Remarkably, plaintiffs assert that such information and documents are irrelevant and privileged. Such objections are misguided given plaintiffs' contention that the parties entered into a partnership or joint venture that gave to fiduciary duties. This refusal to provide facts or documents relating to the alleged partnership or joint venture is improper and highly prejudicial to Fusion Garage. Plaintiffs cannot contend that Fusion Garage breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs while refusing to provide any information on the alleged relationship that supposedly gave rise to that fiduciary duty. Please supplement plaintiffs' responses and produce documents in support of plaintiffs' joint venture/partnership allegations. Requests Relating to "Misappropriation of Business Ideas": Plaintiffs have also refused to respond to certain requests relating to plaintiffs' claim for "misappropriation of business ideas," and have provided inadequate responses to other requests on this topic. For instance, Interrogatory No. 3 asked plaintiffs to identify all documents that contain every allegedly protectable business idea that Fusion Garage allegedly misappropriated. Plaintiffs refused to respond to this interrogatory. On a related note, Interrogatory No. 1 asked plaintiffs to "describe with particularity each and every `business idea' that you contend Defendant misappropriated." Plaintiffs provided a response to this interrogatory, but the response did not describe any business ideas "with particularity." Rather, plaintiffs appears to have restated the allegations from their complaint. Plaintiffs' response sketched out the alleged collaboration between the parties and then stated, in 2 general terms, that plaintiffs' contributions to the collaboration are the "business ideas" that Fusion Garage misappropriated. For instance, plaintiffs wrote: "the TechCrunch and Fusion Garage employees worked together on almost every component of the project. Particular objects of attention included screen visibility issues, touch screen performance issues, user interface issues, issues relating to `gestures' used for commands, and keyboard page design issues. All these contributions constitute business ideas that Fusion Garage misappropriated for its private benefit." (emphasis added). Simply listing the broad categories of "issues" that the parties worked on does not "describe with particularity" the business ideas that Fusion Garage allegedly misappropriated. For instance, it cannot be said that the phrase "screen visibility issues" or "user interface issues" sufficiently describes a business idea or gives notice to Fusion Garage about what was allegedly misappropriated. Rather than sketching out the alleged collaboration and making reference to broad categories of "issues" that the parties worked on, plaintiffs must provide a specific, unambiguous list of the business ideas that Fusion Garage allegedly misappropriated. Only then would Fusion Garage have adequate notice of exactly what was allegedly misappropriated. Please supplement this response. Interrogatory No. 2 asked plaintiffs to state all facts to support their contention that their alleged business ideas were protectable as intellectual property. Interrogatory No. 4 asked plaintiffs to describe every alleged contribution that they made to the supposed collaboration relating to the CrunchPad web tablet. In response to both interrogatories, plaintiffs simply referred back to their deficient response to Interrogatory No. 1. Please supplement plaintiffs' responses. Plaintiffs have also frustrated Fusion Garage's ability to identify witnesses (and take depositions) related to the alleged "business ideas" by refusing to respond to Interrogatory No. 10, which asks plaintiffs to "identify all persons affiliated with you who provided any allegedly protectable business ideas . . . to Defendant." This refusal is improper. Plaintiffs cannot frustrate Fusion Garage's ability to identify proper deponents by refusing to even name the individuals who allegedly provided these "business ideas" to Fusion Garage. Requests Regarding Trade Secrets and Intellectual Property. Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 6 asked plaintiffs to describe their trade secrets with particularity and identify all documents containing or memorializing all of their trade secrets. Plaintiffs responded that they do "not assert a cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets." As you know, Fusion Garage has a motion for a protective order pending in which it notes that plaintiffs have filed claims that are a subterfuge for a trade secrets claim. For the reasons articulated in that motion, plaintiffs should provide substantive responses to these discovery requests. We note that, to date, plaintiffs have refused to commit to not adding a trade secrets claim in the future.1 Request for Production No. 2 seeks all documents containing the trade secrets that plaintiffs allege Fusion Garage misappropriated. Plaintiffs responded that "[n]o documents are responsive to this request." 3 1 Interrogatory No. 7 asked plaintiffs to describe with particularity every alleged item of intellectual property that that they contend Fusion Garage misappropriated. Plaintiffs responded that they are not asserting causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, patents or applications thereof. Plaintiffs do not describe any supposed "business ideas," so we assume that that plaintiffs do not contend that business ideas are intellectual property. Moreover, plaintiffs provide a vague response that Fusion Garage "may" be engaging in trademark infringement. Please supplement this response to provide substantive information. Similarly, Request for Production No. 3 seeks all documents disclosing or describing each alleged item of intellectual property that plaintiffs contend Fusion Garage misappropriated. Plaintiffs responded that they will produce the CrunchPad trademark application but that no other documents exist. We assume by this response that, aside from a trademark application, plaintiffs claim no intellectual property in a web tablet. Requests Relating to the Lanham Act and fraud claims: Finally, plaintiffs have refused to provide documents relating to the Lanham Act and fraud claims in this case. For instance, Request for Production No. 12 asked for "all documents containing statements made by Defendant that you contend were false and misleading under the Lanham Act." Request for Production No. 13 asked for "all documents reflecting alleged promises from Defendant to you that you contend Defendant did not fulfill," and Fusion Garage's alleged broken promises are central to the fraud claim in this case. Plaintiffs objected to both these requests on the ground that they seek "information concerning counsel's assessment of and contentions concerning the facts and evidence in this case," but these requests seek nothing of the sort. Fusion Garage has not asked for any documents written by counsel or otherwise disclosing counsel's work product. Fusion Garage simply has asked for documents reflecting the statements that form the basis for plaintiffs' Lanham Act claim and the promises that form the basis for plaintiffs' fraud claim. Plaintiffs cannot allege false statements and promises by Fusion Garage while refusing to provide any discovery regarding the very statements and promises. Documents Plaintiffs agreed to produce documents in response to many of Fusion Garage's document requests. To date, we have received no documents. Please confirm that you will begin producing documents by March 15, 2010. Production on a rolling basis is sufficient so long as we receive all responsive documents shortly thereafter. /// /// 4 Conclusion As mentioned above, it is important that Fusion Garage receive full and complete responses to its discovery requests as soon as possible so that it has sufficient information to fully and fairly oppose plaintiffs' already-filed preliminary injunction motion. To that end, we request that plaintiffs commit to provide supplemental responses and produce documents by Monday, March 15, 2010. In any event, please respond to this letter by Friday, March 12, 2010 to inform us if plaintiffs will be supplementing their responses and producing documents by early next week. Very truly yours, /s/ Patrick C. Doolittle Patrick C. Doolittle 5 EXHIBIT C WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (415) 591-1451 mscherb@winston.com March 12, 2010 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Patrick Doolittle (patrickdoolittle@quinnemanuel.com) QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Re: Dear Patrick: I write in response to your letter of March 10, 2010. Depositions It was Fusion Garage's failure to confer with TechCrunch over deposition dates, as the Local Civil Rules require, that has prevented the depositions from going forward. Local Civil Rule 30-1 states: For the convenience of witnesses, counsel and parties, before noticing a deposition of a party or witness affiliated with a party, the noticing party must confer about the scheduling of the deposition with opposing counsel or, if the party is pro se, the party. A party noticing a deposition of a witness who is not a party or affiliated with a party must also meet and confer about scheduling, but may do so after serving the nonparty witness with a subpoena. Interserve, Inc. v. Fusion Garage Pte. Ltd., No. 09-5812 (N.D. Cal.) Fusion Garage's Responses to Plaintiffs' First Sets of Interrogatories and Requests for Production Patrick Doolittle March 12, 2010 Page 2 The conference must take place face-to-face or telephonically. See Local Civ. R. 1-5(n). TechCrunch noted Fusion Garage's failure to confer in its objections to the deposition notices and, as you note, in a separate email dated March 5, 2010. In any event, we discussed deposition scheduling during yesterday's Rule 26(f) conference, and specifically discussed late March/early April as a likely timeframe. We have been in touch with our clients and will get back to you as soon as possible with proposed dates. Verifications We will provide appropriate verifications for TechCrunch's responses to Fusion Garage's First Sets of Interrogatories. Responses to Written Discovery Requests Relating to the Partnership / Joint Venture. Interrogatories Nos. 8 and 9 and Request for Production of Documents No. 4 are early contention discovery served even before the Rule 26 conference in this case. Responding to them implicates concerns about disclosing privileged and work product materials. Meanwhile, TechCrunch has offered substantive responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 11, and has offered to produce documents response to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 5-7 and 19-20, which all bear somewhat on the topic of the parties' collaboration. Nevertheless, given the current procedural posture of the case, TechCrunch will, as a courtesy, supplement its responses to Interrogatories Nos. 8 and 9 and Request for Production of Documents No. 4. Again, it is very early in the case, and TechCrunch reserves its rights to amend these responses as the discovery and the case unfold. Requests Relating to Misappropriation of Business Ideas TechCrunch provided a detailed, three-and-a-half page response to Interrogatory No. 1. To the extent that Fusion Garage is able to identify concrete concerns about the particularity of certain business ideas referenced in TechCrunch's response, we can discuss those. Otherwise, we must simply disagree with your characterization of the response as lacking particularity. Fusion Garage's Interrogatory No. 2 seeks legal arguments and conclusions as to the protectability of TechCrunch's business ideas. As such, it is essentially an attempt to inquire into information protected by the attorney client privilege and the work product doctrine. Insofar as Interrogatory No. 2 relates to the nature of the business ideas themselves, it recapitulates Interrogatory No. 1. Accordingly, it was appropriate for TechCrunch to reiterate its detailed response to Interrogatory No. 1. Similarly, the narrative response to Interrogatory No. 1 Patrick Doolittle March 12, 2010 Page 3 adequately answers Interrogatory No. 4, which seeks a description of TechCrunch's "contributions" to the CrunchPad project. Interrogatory No. 10 likewise impermissibly seeks information relating to TechCrunch's contentions and legal conclusions as to the legal status of its business ideas, as well as, potentially, other sensitive or otherwise protected business, technical, and other information. Furthermore, it is not at all clear what Fusion Garage means by the phrase "allegedly protectable business ideas, trade secrets, or intellectual property," especially since this case contains no trade secret claims. However, TechCrunch will supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 10 to provide the names of TechCrunch employees who provided Fusion Garage with the business ideas identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1. Requests Relating to Trade Secrets. Fusion Garage's Interrogatories Nos. 5 and 6 and its Request for Production of Documents No. 2. seek information and documents about any trade secret that TechCrunch contends Fusion Garage misappropriated. There is no trade secret claim in this case and the interrogatories are irrelevant, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. TechCrunch's written responses to this effect are adequate. Finally, Fusion Garage's repeated demand that TechCrunch "commit to not adding a trade secrets claim in the future" is improper. TechCrunch is not sitting on a trade secret claim and has no present intention to bring one in this case. But neither TechCrunch nor Fusion Garage can make meaningful commitments about what it will do in the future if new information were to emerge. Meanwhile, the parties must litigate only the claims actually present in the case, not other hypothetical and imaginary ones. Requests Relating to Intellectual Property With respect to Interrogatory No. 7, TechCrunch's response is both clear and responsive. The Interrogatory ask TechCrunch to describe every "item of intellectual property" including "trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, patents" that TechCrunch contends Fusion Garage misappropriated. TechCrunch does not assert causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, or patents. The interrogatory is irrelevant. To the extent the Interrogatory asks about intellectual property other than trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, and patents, the Interragtory is too vague for a response. However, please note that to the extent that Fusion Garage purports to classify TechCrunch's business ideas as "intellectual property," this request appears to be merely duplicative of Interrogatory No. 1, which TechCrunch has answered. As to possible infringing use of the CRUNCHPAD mark, TechCrunch has nothing additional to add as this time, and notes that most information regarding infringement, if any, would be uniquely within the knowledge, possession and control of Fusion Garage. Patrick Doolittle March 12, 2010 Page 4 Fusion Garage's Request for Production of Documents No. 3, which seeks "documents disclosing or describing" all "intellectual property" has the same issues as Interrogatory No. 7 and TechCrunch's response is adequate. Requests Relating to the Lanham Act and Fraud Claims TechCrunch will supplement its responses to Fusion Garage's Document Requests Nos. 12 and 13 TechCrunch Will Produce Documents Responsive to Fusion Garage's Request for Production. TechCrunch will begin producing responsive documents on Monday, March 15, 2010 as Fusion Garage requested. We understand from yesterday's Rule 26 conference that Fusion Garage will also produce documents next week to supplement the 13 pages it has produced to date. Best regards, /s/ Matthew A. Scherb EXHIBIT D I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Andrew P. Bridges (SBN: 122761) Abridges@winston.com David S. Bloch (SBN: 184530) DBloch@winston.com Matthew A. Scherb (SBN: 237461) MScherb@winston.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street 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, ) ) PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD.'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) [Supplementing Responses to Request Nos. 4, 12, and 13] 10 11 12 15 16 17 VS. FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD., a Singapore ) company, ) Defendant. ) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 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 -1PLTFS.' SUPP. RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812 1 2 3 4 5 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. 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 6 7 8 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 9 10 N O 11 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. 17 18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1 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. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2PLTFS.' SUPP. RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.2 2 3 4 5 Plaintiffs do not allege misappropriation of trade secrets in their Complaint. No documents are responsive to this request. REQUEST NO.3 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. 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 All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention that PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANT entered into a partnership or joint venture. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.4 Plaintiffs object that this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information 17 18 19 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. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4 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 -3PLTFS.' SUPP. RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 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. 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. 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. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.5 Plaintiffs object to this request as vague and ambiguous as to the phrase "your alleged 12 13 14 15 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. 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. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4PLTFS.' SUPP. RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 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. 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. 8 9 10 II a a;^ 12 13 14 15 3 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27. 28 -5PLTFS.' SUPP. RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.9 2 3 4 5 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. 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. 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. 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. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6PLTFS.' SUPP. RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812 Without waiving and subject to Plaintiffs' general and specific objections, Plaintiffs will 2 3 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 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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. SUPPLEMENTAL 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. 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. 13 All DOCUMENTS reflecting or containing alleged promises from DEFENDANT to YOU that YOU contend DEFENDANT did not fulfill. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13 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 -7PLTFS.' SUPP. RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 09-CV-5812 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13 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. 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. 14 9 10 11 12 17 18 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. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -8PLTFS.' SUPP. RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812 I 2 3 4 5 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. 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. 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. 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 -9PLTFS.' SUPP. RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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. 4 5 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. 17 All DOCUMENTS reflecting blog posts or other internet postings that REFER TO this 6 7 8 9. litigation. 10 11 12 13 14 15 v) 16 17 18 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. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -10PLTFS.' SUPP. RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812 1 2 3 4 5 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. 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. 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 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -11PLTFS.' SUPP . 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 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 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 17 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. 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. -12PLTFS.' SUPP. RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22 2 3 4 5 6 7 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. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Dated: March 19, 2010 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP Andrew P. Bridges David S. Bloch Matthew A. Scherb Attorneys for Plaintiffs 17 18 SF:276927.1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -13PLTFS.' SUPP. RESPONSE TO REQ. TO PROD. OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Case No. 09-CV-5812 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 3 4 5 6 Case Name: Court : Case No.: Interserve, Inc. dba Tech Crunch and Crunchpad v. Fusion Garage Pte. Ltd. U.S. District Court , Northern District of California C 09-cv-5812 JW (PVT) I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is Winston & Strawn LLP, 101 California Street, San Francisco, CA 94111-5894. On March 19, 2010 I served the within document: PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO FUSION GARAGE PTD. LTD'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) By placing the document listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at San Francisco, addressed as set forth below. Patrick C. Doolittle Claude M. Stern Joshua Sohn QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES patrickdoolittle@quinnemai-luel.com claudestemgquinnemanuel. com j oshuasohngquinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22n Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 875-6600 Phone: (415) 875-6700 Facsimile: I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court whose direction the service was made. Executed on March 19, 2010 at San Francisco, California. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Linda Smith 26 27 28 Case No. C 09-ev-5812 JW (PVT) SF:275353.1 EXHIBIT E Joshua Sohn From: Sent: To: Subject: Bloch, David S. [DBloch@winston.com] Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:55 PM Patrick Doolittle; Joshua Sohn; Scherb, Matthew A. RE: Interserve, Inc. v. Fusion Garage PTE Ltd.: Letter from Doolittle to Bloch and Scherb Hi, Patrick: We're glad to move the hearing by a week, as you requested yesterday. I assume you can draft the papers? Given that shift in dates, you can review Mr. Arrington's documents prior to his deposition next week (any day but Friday) to avoid the purported prejudice raised by your letter of earlier today. As to Mr. Rathakrishnan's deposition, if he won't be in the United States in April, we'll depose him in Singapore. But we do expect that deposition to proceed a suitable time before our reply brief is due. Please let us know soonest when he's available. As to Fusion Garage's tardy production, suffice it to say that we disagree that this is a "different issue." A protective order is now in place and we still have not received documents relevant to the pending motion and to which TechCrunch is entitled, including the McGrath Powers production. Are additional documents forthcoming? Please advise. Thanks much. Best--DSB David S. Bloch Partner Winston & Strawn LLP 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5894 T: +1 (415) 591-1452 F: +1 (415) 591-1400 bio | vcard | email | www.winston.com From: Patrick Doolittle [mailto:patrickdoolittle@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 2:44 PM To: Bloch, David S.; Joshua Sohn; Scherb, Matthew A. Subject: RE: Interserve, Inc. v. Fusion Garage PTE Ltd.: Letter from Doolittle to Bloch and Scherb We plan to proceed with the deposition on April 2, 2010. We can't move it in light of the scheduled hearing date on the Preliminary Injunction motion. Fusion Garage's document production is a different issue than Plaintiffs' document production plaintiffs are moving parties on a motion for a preliminary injunction and have already filed the motion. From: Bloch, David S. [mailto:DBloch@winston.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 1:52 PM To: Joshua Sohn; Scherb, Matthew A. 1 Cc: Patrick Doolittle Subject: RE: Interserve, Inc. v. Fusion Garage PTE Ltd.: Letter from Doolittle to Bloch and Scherb Hi, all: In response to Patrick's letter, below, we should be producing the balance of Mr. Arrington's documents by the end of the week, with other documents to follow next week. Fusion Garage has produced a total of 50 pages of material to date despite having been served with discovery first and in the face of a court order that specifically contemplated an early request for preliminary injunctive relief, so is in no position to complain about the pace of production. We are glad to push the Arrington deposition into next week to allow Fusion Garage to review the rest of his documents in advance of his deposition. Please advise what dates (other than April 9) you would prefer. But we decline your request to withdraw the motion to impose a constructive trust on Fusion Garage's JooJoo-related revenues. Best--DSB David S. Bloch Partner Winston & Strawn LLP 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5894 T: +1 (415) 591-1452 F: +1 (415) 591-1400 bio | vcard | email | www.winston.com From: Joshua Sohn [mailto:Joshuasohn@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 11:22 AM To: Bloch, David S.; Scherb, Matthew A. Cc: Patrick Doolittle Subject: Interserve, Inc. v. Fusion Garage PTE Ltd.: Letter from Doolittle to Bloch and Scherb Dear counsel, Please see the attached letter from Patrick Doolittle. Joshua Sohn Associate, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415-875-6415 Direct 415.875.6600 Main Office Number 415.875.6700 FAX Joshuasohn@quinnemanuel.com www.quinnemanuel.com NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you 2 have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. ****************************************************************************** Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used,

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?