Silvers v. Google, Inc.

Filing 158

MOTION for Leave to File by Stelor Productions, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Sur-Reply# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Agreed Order Granting Leave to File Sur-Reply)(Zack, David)

Silvers v. Google, Inc.

Doc. 158 Att. 1

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 158-2

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2006

Page 1 of 5

Exhibit A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 05-80387 CIV RYSKAMP/VITUNAC STEVEN A. SILVERS, an individual, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. _______________________________________/ GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, Counterclaimant, v. STEVEN A. SILVERS, an individual; STELOR PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; STELOR PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and STEVEN ESRIG, an individual, Counterdefendants. ________________________________________/ STELOR PRODUCTION, LLC'S SUR-REPLY TO GOOGLE INC.'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS CROSS-MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND FOR COSTS Google's Reply continues to make unavailing arguments about the privileges asserted by Stelor. The thrust of Google's argument is that it was somehow improper to for Stelor to attempt to narrow the issues by voluntarily providing a more detailed privileged log and producing a thousand pages of docume nts to Google.

BURLI N G TO N · SCH WI EP · KAP LAN & BLO N SK Y, P A. .
O F F IC E
IN T H E

G R O V E P E N T H O USE EMAI L:

2699

S O U T H B AYSH O R E D R IV E M I AMI , F LO RI DA 3 3 I 3 3
WW . BSKBLAW CO M W .

T: 305 .8 58 .290 0 F: 305 .8 58 .526 I
IN FO @ BSKBLA . CO M W

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 158-2

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2006

Page 2 of 5

Stelor acted in good faith to narrow the issues to be resolved by the Court. Most of the documents produced were copies of papers from the prior litigation between Stelor and Silvers, which were subsequently used by Stelor at the deposition of Steven Silvers pursuant to the Court's October 5, 2006 Omnibus Order [DE #138]. Primarily as a courtesy to Google's counsel who was appearing telephonically for the Silvers deposition, rather than traveling from her office in San Francisco, Stelor bates stamped and delivered the documents. Of course, Google is no t a party to the dispute between Stelor and Silvers, and the documents produced were not germane to Google's issues with Stelor and Silvers, but Stelor produced them nonetheless. Stelor also produced a set of e- mail communications with Silvers, in an attempt further to narrow the scope of the dispute. Stelor had properly objected to production of those documents on various grounds in response to Google's document requests. Even in its untimely CrossMotion to Compel, Google still failed to address those objections, let alone explain the basis for seeking to have the objections overruled. 1 Clearly, Stelor's continued efforts to narrow the scope of this discovery dispute ­ and also to accommodate Google's out-of-town counsel by overnighting deposition exhibits ­ does not justify the request for sanctions. Stelor has now produced in excess of 11,000 pages of documents to Google ; and Google has produced none! And, Stelor has worked in good faith to resolve various discovery issues with Google, demonstrated by the absence of any motion to

1

Google now claims that a document buried in the Calabria Declaration at Tab 14 satisfies the Local Rules with respect to preparing a proper recitation of the disputed discovery requests, responses, and reasons why the discovery should be produced. Google's list does not comply with the Local Rules in that it is missing the critical element of the reason why the objections should be overruled. See Local Rule 26.1(h)(2)(c) ("the reason assigned as supporting the motion" shall be written in immediate succession following the grounds assigned for the objection). 2

BURLI N G TO N · SCH WI EP · KAP LAN & BLO N SK Y, P A. .
O F F IC E
IN T H E

G R O V E P E N T H O USE EMAI L:

2699

S O U T H B AYSH O R E D R IV E M I AMI , F LO RI DA 3 3 I 3 3
WW . BSKBLAW CO M W .

T: 305 .8 58 .290 0 F: 305 .8 58 .526 I
IN FO @ BSKBLA . CO M W

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 158-2

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2006

Page 3 of 5

compel by Google ­ until the cross- motion, in response to Stelor's motion to protect an important privilege. With respect to the substance of Google's arguments in opposition to Stelor's claimed privileges, those issues were fully addressed in Stelor's initial motion and its reply, on which Stelor relies. Google's "reply", improper in the first place, does not support disregarding these important privileges here. WHEREFORE, Stelor respectfully requests that this Court issue an order granting Stelor's motion for protective order, and denying Google's cross- motions to compel and for costs. Respectfully submitted, s/Kevin C. Kaplan - Florida Bar No. 933848 David J. Zack - Florida Bar No. 641685 Email: [e-mail] [e-mail] BURLINGTON, SCHWIEP, KAPLAN & BLONSKY, P.A. Office in the Grove, Penthouse A 2699 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Counsel for STELOR PRODUCTIONS, LLC and STEVEN ESRIG

3

BURLI N G TO N · SCH WI EP · KAP LAN & BLO N SK Y, P A. .
O F F IC E
IN T H E

G R O V E P E N T H O USE EMAI L:

2699

S O U T H B AYSH O R E D R IV E M I AMI , F LO RI DA 3 3 I 3 3
WW . BSKBLAW CO M W .

T: 305 .8 58 .290 0 F: 305 .8 58 .526 I
IN FO @ BSKBLA . CO M W

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 158-2

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2006

Page 4 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 25, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. s/Kevin C. Kaplan

4

BURLI N G TO N · SCH WI EP · KAP LAN & BLO N SK Y, P A. .
O F F IC E
IN T H E

G R O V E P E N T H O USE EMAI L:

2699

S O U T H B AYSH O R E D R IV E M I AMI , F LO RI DA 3 3 I 3 3
WW . BSKBLAW CO M W .

T: 305 .8 58 .290 0 F: 305 .8 58 .526 I
IN FO @ BSKBLA . CO M W

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 158-2

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2006

Page 5 of 5

SERVICE LIST STEVEN A. SILVERS, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC. CASE NO. 05-80387 CIV RYSKAMP/VITUNAC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Steven A. Silvers, pro se [e-mail] Suite 202 ­ PMB 203 8983 Okeechobee Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33411 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Method of Service: Facsimile & U.S. Mail

Robert H. Cooper, Esq. [e-mail] ROBERT COOPER, P.A. Concorde Cent re II, Suite 704 2999 N.E. 191 Street Aventura, Florida 33180 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorney for Plaintiff Steven A. Silvers Method of Service: Facsimile and U.S. Mail Jan Douglas Atlas, Esq. [e-mail] ADORNO & YOSS LLP Suite 1700 350 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Tel: [phone] Fax. [phone] Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc. Method of Service: Facsimile and U.S. Mail

Ramsey Al-Salam, Esq. [e-mail] William C. Rava, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP Suite 4800 1201 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc. Method of Service: Facsimile and U.S. Mail

Johanna Calabria, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP Suite 2400 Four Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] E- mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc. Method of Service: Facsimile and U.S. Mail 5

BURLI N G TO N · SCH WI EP · KAP LAN & BLO N SK Y, P A. .
O F F IC E
IN T H E

G R O V E P E N T H O USE EMAI L:

2699

S O U T H B AYSH O R E D R IV E M I AMI , F LO RI DA 3 3 I 3 3
WW . BSKBLAW CO M W .

T: 305 .8 58 .290 0 F: 305 .8 58 .526 I
IN FO @ BSKBLA . CO M W