Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.

Filing 538

Letter to The Honorable Leonard P. Stark from Richard L. Horwitz regarding Trial Date - re 537 Memorandum and Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Horwitz, Richard)

Download PDF
1313 North Market Street P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899-0951 302 984 6000 Richard L. Horwitz Partner Attorney at Law 302 984-6027 Direct Phone 302 658-1192 Fax November 7, 2013 CM/ECF and HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Leonard Stark United States District Court 844 King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Re: Personalized User Model, LLP v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 09-00525-LPS Dear Judge Stark: Defendant Google Inc. respectfully requests that the Court reschedule trial in this matter because Google’s trial team has another trial scheduled for March 10, 2014. On September 30, 2013, the parties in this case submitted a Joint Status Report (D.I. 529) stating that they would be ready for trial in May 2014. (Id. at 1-3.) Google explained in its portions of the Joint Status Report that “Google’s counsel has trial commitments that preclude its availability for trial before May 2014” (id. at 3), and PUM agreed to postpone the trial date until May 2014 on this basis (id. at 1). Google further stated in its portions of the Joint Status Report that “[s]hould the Court so desire, Google is happy to provide detail regarding these commitments or have a teleconference to discuss them.” (Id. at 3, n. 2.)1 As Google informed PUM prior to filing the Joint Status Report, virtually every member of the Quinn Emanuel team representing Google in this case (Charles Verhoeven, David Perlson, Antonio Sistos, Joshua Sohn, and Margaret Kammerud2) is scheduled to be in trial in TracBeam v. Google Inc., No. 6:13-cv-93 (E.D. Tex.) beginning March 10, 2014. Google explained this to PUM when the parties met and conferred regarding preparing the Joint Status Report. Google explained that on September 12, 2013, the parties in the TracBeam case jointly filed a motion to amend the case schedule to move the trial date from November 12, 2013 to May 12, 2014.3 Google explained to PUM that if TracBeam was not set at or near May 12, 2014 as requested by the parties in that case, Google would be available for trial in this case at or near May 12, 2014. On September 26, 2013, the TracBeam Court issued an order setting trial for 1 Google provided PUM with the details of these conflicts in advance of filing the Joint Status Report. 2 As PUM is aware, each of these attorneys has been working on this matter since early in the case, with Messrs. Verhoeven, Perlson, and Sistos, having appeared in September 2009. 3 Although not filed until September 12, 2013, the parties in TracBeam had been negotiating the revised schedule for a few weeks prior to filing. The Honorable Leonard P. Stark November 7, 2013 Page 2 March 10, 2014. Google advised PUM of this development and Google and PUM accordingly jointly proposed trial in this matter be in May 2014. (Id., 1-3.) Google also advised PUM that Mr. Verhoeven is scheduled to be lead trial counsel in ViaSat v. Space Systems/Loral, No. 12-cv-0260 (S.D. Cal.) beginning March 18, 2014 and lasting for two weeks. At a summary judgment hearing in ViaSat on October 29 (the day after this court set trial for March 10, 2014), Mr. Verhoeven’s co-counsel raised the conflict with the Court. The Court scheduled a conference call for October 30 to discuss the scheduling conflict. Mr. Verhoeven asked the Court to move the ViaSat trial date to May 2014 to avoid the conflict. Later that day, the Court issued an order re-stating that the ViaSat trial is set for March 18, 2014, and asking that this Court be made aware of the conflict. (Ex. A.) Google did not include the details of TracBeam and ViaSat conflicts in its portions of the Joint Status Report because PUM agreed to jointly propose May 2014 as a trial date in light of Google’s conflicts. Google is now aware that this Court is not available for trial in May 2014, and cannot accommodate a trial of this length until July or August 2014. (D.I. 537 at 3.) If the Court can accommodate a trial of this length in mid- to late-April 2014, Google can be available at that time.4 Alternatively, Google is available for trial as of August 4, 2014. Google understands that PUM believes that this is too late. But, this conflict will preclude Google from having its chosen trial counsel represent it at trial in this matter, TracBeam, and ViaSat, in particular lead trial counsel in the three cases, the partner responsible for the day to day management of this matter and TracBeam, and the attorney with the most technical expertise and knowledge of the accused Google products and systems in this matter and TracBeam. To proceed with trial in this matter on March 10, 2014 would be incredibly prejudicial to Google. Accordingly, Google respectfully requests that this Court reschedule trial in this matter for mid- to late-April 2014 or August 4, 2014. To the extent the Court does not reschedule trial now, Google respectfully requests that the Court consider doing so if another date becomes available on the Court’s calendar, such as a date in May 2014. Respectfully, /s/ Richard L. Horwitz Richard L. Horwitz RLH/drt cc: Clerk of the Court (via hand delivery) Counsel of Record (via electronic mail) 1129357 / 34638 4 Google’s trial counsel previously had a trial conflict in April 2014 and therefore did not initially propose that time frame for trial. But, that conflict no longer exists.

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?