Van Valin et al v. Google, Inc.

Filing 9

Response to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 3 . Filed by Google, Inc.. (Aldisert, Robert)

Download PDF
Van Valin et al v. Google, Inc. Doc. 9 Robert L. Aldisert, OSB No. 940433 RAldisert@perkinscoie.com Julia E. Markley, OSB No. 000791 JMarkley@perkinscoie.com PERKINS COIE LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 Telephone: 503.727.2000 Facsimile: 503.727.2222 Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION VICKI VAN VALIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated within the state of Oregon; NEIL MERTZ on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated within the state of Washington, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. No. CV 10-557 ST DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER One week ago, on May 17, Plaintiffs filed this suit, which deals with "payload data" mistakenly collected from open Wi-Fi connections. Complaint (Dkt No. 1) 11. Overreacting to reports that some foreign authorities were asking Google to delete data relating to their citizens, Plaintiffs that same day filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order "enjoining Google, Inc. [sic] from destroying or altering any of the payload data it has collected for any person or entity within the states of Oregon or Washington." Motion and Memorandum in P e r k i n s Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222 Dockets.Justia.com 1- GOOGLE TRO RESPONSE LEGAL18369317.1 Support of Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 3) at 9 ("Conclusion"). Plaintiffs' first proposed order sought only that relief. By the time the suit and the motion were filed, Google had already retained an expert consultant to secure payload data for the United States and, separately, for the rest of the world. Declaration of Alexander Stamos 4. Data in Google servers was promptly encrypted and secured, even before the TRO motion was first set to be heard on May 19. Id. Counsel for Google contacted Plaintiffs' counsel and offered to agree to preservation of the United States data. Instead of accepting Google's representation that it was not taking the steps that Plaintiffs professed to fear with respect to United States data, Plaintiffs escalated their demands to seek additional relief not specified in or justified by their Motion and Memorandum. The hearing was postponed until today, and ultimately Google determined not to accede to Plaintiffs' new and unsupported demands. Google has no intention of violating its document preservation obligations, and has already taken steps going well beyond what is required. The Court should deny Plaintiffs' motion. DATED: May 24, 2010 PERKINS COIE LLP By: /s/ Robert L. Aldisert Robert L. Aldisert, OSB No. 940433 RAldisert@perkinscoie.com Julia E. Markley, OSB No. 000791 JMarkley@perkinscoie.com 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 Telephone: 503.727.2000 Facsimile: 503.727.2222 Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc. 2- GOOGLE TRO RESPONSE LEGAL18369317.1 P e r k i n s Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

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?