Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.

Filing 393

REDACTED VERSION of 383 Letter to The Honorable Leonard R. Stark from Karen Jacobs Louden regarding response to Google's August 29, 2012 Letter by Personalized User Model LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1 through 8)(Tigan, Jeremy)

EXHIBIT 1

Bennett, Jennifer D.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Bennett, Jennifer D.
Thursday, March 08, 2012 2:58 PM
'Andrea P Roberts'; PUM
Google-PUM; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
PUM v. Google

Andrea,
I write in response to Google's March 1, 2012 announcement changing Google's privacy policy. It is clear from the
publicly available information on the new policy that Google is monitoring and using information it collects about its
users and combining all of the collected information in one place to provide personalized search results and ads to the
user, and is therefore, highly relevant to the current case. Please immediately supplement Google's document production
and produce all documents relating to Google's new policy and the ways in which Google monitors, collects and combines
data regarding user's interactions to provide search results and ads to its users.
Thanks,

1

EXHIBIT 2

SNR Denton US LLP
1530 Page Mill Road
Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125 USA

Jennifer D. Bennett
Senior Managing Associate
[e-mail]
D [phone]
T [phone]
F [phone]
snrdenton.com

March 20, 2012

BY E-MAIL
Andrea Roberts
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Shores Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-2139

Re:

Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 09-00525-LPS

Dear Andrea:
I write to follow-up on my March 8, 2012 email regarding Google’s new privacy policy and in response to
your March 15, 2012 email regarding the same. As I stated in my email, the publicly available information
regarding Google’s new policy indicates Google is combining information from user’s interactions across
different Google services/products and using this combined data to personalize the user’s experience.
For example, Google states, “Second, the new policy reflects our efforts to create one beautifully simple,
intuitive user experience across Google. It makes clear that, if you have a Google Account and are signed
in, we may combine information you’ve provided from one service with information from other services. In
short, we can treat you as a single user across all our products.” See for example,
http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/faq/. If this is true, as the policy suggests, documents relating to
how Google combines user’s interactions from different Google services/products to provide personalized
search results and/or personalized advertisements is highly relevant to the case. Under the Federal
Rules, Google is under a continuous obligation to supplement discovery and its document production.
See, e.g., Thiokol Corp. v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., No. 95-706-JJF, slip op. at 10-11 (D. Del. Nov. 13,
1996); Corning Inc. v. SRU Biosystems, LLC, 223 F.R.D. 191, 194 n.3 (D. Del. 2004). Google has not
done so to date and has refused to do so with respect to the above-requested information. It would be a
waste of the resources of the parties and the Court to bring a separate lawsuit on the same subject
matter. Please provide dates and times when Google is available to meet and confer on this issue.

Sincerely,

Jennifer D. Bennett
Jennifer D. Bennett

EXHIBIT 3

SNR Denton US LLP
1530 Page Mill Road
Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125 USA

Jennifer D. Bennett
Senior Managing Associate
[e-mail]
D [phone]
T [phone]
F [phone]
snrdenton.com

April 1, 2012

BY E-MAIL
Joshua Sohn
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Re:

Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 09-00525-LPS

Dear Joshua:
I write in response to your March 27, 2012 letter regarding Google’s new privacy policy. First, Google’s
refusal to supplement its document production because fact discovery is closed is misplaced. As I stated
in my letter to Ms. Roberts, and as I am sure you know, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Google is under a continuous obligation to supplement its discovery responses, including its document
production. See, e.g., Thiokol Corp. v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., No. 95-706-JJF, slip op. at 10-11 (D.
Del. Nov. 13, 1996); Corning Inc. v. SRU Biosystems, LLC, 223 F.R.D. 191, 194 n.3 (D. Del. 2004).
Further, your letter confirms the relevance of Google’s new privacy policy to the present case.
Specifically, you state, “The changes to Google’s privacy policy also make clear that Google can, for a
given signed-in user, combine information gathered in connection with one Google service and use
that information with information from other Google services. For the vast bulk of Google properties,
this does not represent a change in Google privacy policy or how Google treats and deals with user data.
The two notable exceptions to this relate to Web History (i.e., search history for signed-in users) and
YouTube (i.e., Google’s video sharing service that it acquired in 2007). Under the new policy, it is clear to
users, including those of YouTube and Web History, that such cross-service sharing is permitted.”
Google’s change in its policy reflects Google’s change to relevant aspects of the accused systems, (e.g.,
Web History in Google Search and You Tube). Clearly, any change in the way Google combines
information with one service to use in other Google services is highly relevant to the case, including, but
not limited to, relevant to claim elements from both the ‘040 and ‘276 Patents relating to transparently
monitoring user interactions with data, monitoring multiple modes of interaction, updating user-specific
data files, estimating parameters of learning machine based in part on data specific to the user.
If you still maintain that Google has no obligation to provide this information, please immediately provide
dates and times when Google is available to meet and confer on this issue.

Sincerely,

Jennifer D. Bennett
Jennifer D. Bennett

EXHIBIT 4

SNR Denton US LLP
1530 Page Mill Road
Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125 USA

Jennifer D. Bennett
Senior Managing Associate
[e-mail]
D [phone]
T [phone]
F [phone]
snrdenton.com

April 13, 2012

BY E-MAIL
David Perlson
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Re:

Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 09-00525-LPS

Dear David:
I write to follow-up on our meet and confer today regarding documents relating to Google’s new privacy
policy. As I stated during our call, there are several statements in Google’s new privacy policy which
indicates Google made changes to its Search and YouTube systems. For example, Google explains
“[t]he changes to Google’s privacy policy also make clear that Google can, for a given signed-in user,
combine information gathered in connection with one Google service and use that information
with information from other Google services. For the vast bulk of Google properties, this does not
represent a change in Google privacy policy or how Google treats and deals with user data. The two
notable exceptions to this relate to Web History (i.e., search history for signed-in users) and YouTube
(i.e., Google’s video sharing service that it acquired in 2007). Under the new policy, it is clear to users,
including those of YouTube and Web History, that such cross-service sharing is permitted.”
PUM is specifically interested in documents relating to the following:
1. Whether any information tracked and/or collected about a user while using Search, for example,
queries, clicks on results, clicks on ads, results or ad impressions, or any derived information (i.e., odp,
link, or rephil categories associated with such actions) is used by Google in other systems, for example,
to determine which ads to display to a user on YouTube, or which videos to recommend; and
2. Whether any information tracked and/or collected about a user while viewing videos in YouTube or
clicking on ads in YouTube, or any derived information (i.e., the categories associated with the ads that
are clicked by the user) is used by Google in other systems, for example, in Google Search, to determine
which search results or ads to display to a user.
As I stated in previous correspondence, and again during our call today, any documents relating to
whether Google’s change in its policy reflects Google’s change to relevant aspects of the accused
systems, (e.g., Web History in Google Search and You Tube), are highly relevant to the case. Please
confirm as soon as possible whether these changes were made to Google’s systems, and if so, whether
Google will produce documents relating to such changes.
Sincerely,

Jennifer D. Bennett
Jennifer D. Bennett

EXHIBIT 5

Bennett, Jennifer D.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Bennett, Jennifer D.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 10:05 AM
Bennett, Jennifer D.; 'David Perlson'; 'Joshua Sohn'
'Andrea P Roberts'; PUM; 'Google-PUM'; '[e-mail]';
'[e-mail]'; 'Karen Louden ([e-mail])'
RE: PUM v. Google

David,
I write to follow-up on the letter I sent Friday regarding changes to its privacy policy
and/or systems. Please let me know when PUM will receive a response.
Thanks,
-----Original Message----From: Bennett, Jennifer D.
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 8:59 PM
To: 'David Perlson'; Joshua Sohn
Cc: Andrea P Roberts; PUM; Google-PUM; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Karen Louden ([e-mail])
Subject: RE: PUM v. Google
David,
Please see the attached correspondence.
Thanks,
-----Original Message----From: David Perlson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:44 AM
To: Bennett, Jennifer D.; Joshua Sohn
Cc: Andrea P Roberts; PUM; Google-PUM; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Karen Louden ([e-mail])
Subject: RE: PUM v. Google
Jennifer, how about 2 pacific Friday?
-----Original Message----From: Bennett, Jennifer D. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:42 PM
To: Joshua Sohn
Cc: Andrea P Roberts; PUM; Google-PUM; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Karen Louden ([e-mail])
Subject: Re: PUM v. Google
Joshua,
Are you available Thursday between 12 and 1230 PT? Otherwise we are generally available on
Friday. Please let me know what works for you.
Thanks,
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 4, 2012, at 8:55 AM, "Joshua Sohn"
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Jennifer,
1

In response to your request for a meet-and-confer regarding the changes to Google’s privacy
policy, we propose Monday, April 9, at 11:00 a.m. PDT.
Thanks,
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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
www.quinnemanuel.com<http://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 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.

Jennifer D. Bennett
Senior Managing Associate
SNR Denton US LLP
D [phone]
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
snrdenton.com<http://www.snrdenton.com>

[http://www.snrdentoncreative.com/reference/SNR_Denton.gif]

________________________________
SNR Denton is the collective trade name for an international legal practice. This email may
be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient,
disclosure, copying, distribution and use are prohibited; please notify us immediately and
delete this copy from your system. Please see snrdenton.com for Legal Notices, including IRS
Circular 230 Notice.
________________________________
From: Bennett, Jennifer D. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 8:35 PM
To: Joshua Sohn; Andrea P Roberts; PUM
Cc: Google-PUM; '[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>';
'[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>'; Karen Louden
([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
Subject: RE: PUM v. Google
Joshua,
Please see the attached correspondence,
Thanks,
2

Jennifer D. Bennett
Senior Managing Associate
SNR Denton US LLP
D [phone]
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
snrdenton.com<http://www.snrdenton.com>

[http://www.snrdentoncreative.com/reference/SNR_Denton.gif]

________________________________
SNR Denton is the collective trade name for an international legal practice. This email may
be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient,
disclosure, copying, distribution and use are prohibited; please notify us immediately and
delete this copy from your system. Please see snrdenton.com<http://snrdenton.com> for Legal
Notices, including IRS Circular 230 Notice.
________________________________
________________________________
From: Joshua Sohn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 12:26 PM
To: Bennett, Jennifer D.; Andrea P Roberts; PUM
Cc: Google-PUM; '[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>';
'[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>'; Karen Louden
([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
Subject: RE: PUM v. Google
Jennifer,
Please see the attached correspondence.
Sincerely,
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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
www.quinnemanuel.com<http://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 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.
From: Bennett, Jennifer D. [mailto:[e-mail]]
3

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 4:15 PM
To: Andrea P Roberts; PUM
Cc: Google-PUM; '[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>';
'[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>'; Karen Louden
([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
Subject: RE: PUM v. Google
Andrea,
Please see the attached correspondence.
Thanks,

Jennifer D. Bennett
Senior Managing Associate
SNR Denton US LLP
D [phone]
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
snrdenton.com<http://www.snrdenton.com>

[http://www.snrdentoncreative.com/reference/SNR_Denton.gif]

________________________________
SNR Denton is the collective trade name for an international legal practice. This email may
be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient,
disclosure, copying, distribution and use are prohibited; please notify us immediately and
delete this copy from your system. Please see snrdenton.com<http://snrdenton.com> for Legal
Notices, including IRS Circular 230 Notice.
________________________________
________________________________
From: Andrea P Roberts [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:46 PM
To: Bennett, Jennifer D.; PUM
Cc: Google-PUM; '[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>';
'[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>'
Subject: RE: PUM v. Google
Jennifer, putting aside for moment that discovery is closed, Google's March 1, 2012
announcement concerns the adoption of a consolidated and more consistent privacy policy
across Google properties. We do not see any reason to collect and produce any additional
documents, and do not intend to do so.
Regards,
Andrea Pallios Roberts
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
650-801-5023 Direct
650.801.5000 Main Office Number
650.801.5100 FAX
4

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
www.quinnemanuel.com<http://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 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.

From: Bennett, Jennifer D. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 2:58 PM
To: Andrea P Roberts; PUM
Cc: Google-PUM; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: PUM v. Google
Andrea,
I write in response to Google's March 1, 2012 announcement changing Google's privacy policy.
It is clear from the publicly available information on the new policy that Google is
monitoring and using information it collects about its users and combining all of the
collected information in one place to provide personalized search results and ads to the
user, and is therefore, highly relevant to the current case. Please immediately supplement
Google's document production and produce all documents relating to Google's new policy and
the ways in which Google monitors, collects and combines data regarding user's interactions
to provide search results and ads to its users.
Thanks,

Jennifer D. Bennett
Senior Managing Associate
SNR Denton US LLP
D [phone]
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
snrdenton.com<http://www.snrdenton.com>

[http://www.snrdentoncreative.com/reference/SNR_Denton.gif]

________________________________
SNR Denton is the collective trade name for an international legal practice. This email may
be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient,
disclosure, copying, distribution and use are prohibited; please notify us immediately and
delete this copy from your system. Please see snrdenton.com<http://snrdenton.com> for Legal
Notices, including IRS Circular 230 Notice.
________________________________

5

EXHIBIT 6
FULLY REDACTED

EXHIBIT 7
FULLY REDACTED

EXHIBIT 8
FULLY REDACTED