Silvers v. Google, Inc.

Filing 309

RESPONSE/REPLY to 299 Order on Motion to Compel, 281 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Better Answers to Plaintiff Stelor's Interrogatories filed by Google, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Haimo, Samantha)

Silvers v. Google, Inc.

Doc. 309

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION Case No. 05-80387-CIV (Ryskamp/Vitunac)

STELOR PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.'S RESPONSE TO ORDER COMPELLING BETTER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES On October 23, 2008, the Court issued an order requiring Google to provide better answers to plaintiff's interrogatories. The Court noted it was issuing the order because Google "failed to respond" to the motion and its "failure to timely respond may be sufficient cause to grant the motion by default." Although the underlying issues may be moot, Google notes that it did not respond to the motion because plaintiff's counsel had promised, repeatedly, to withdraw the motion. In particular, in a series of emails on October 7, 2008, between counsel for Google, Ramsey Al-Salam, and counsel for Stelor, Morgan Swing, Google asked whether the Motion to Compel would be withdrawn, and Ms. Swing agreed to do so upon receipt of supplemental responses. She said that Stelor was "letting the motion to compel sit, and as we discussed last week, it will likely be moot since you are sending up the revised responses." See Exhibit 1 attached hereto. Mr. Al-Salam specifically asked what Ms. Swing meant by "letting the motion to compel `sit,'"

41063-0037/LEGAL14864462.1

1
Dockets.Justia.com

and asked if she was intending to reschedule it. Id. Ms. Swing responded that once Stelor "receive[d] [the] revised interrogatory answers, [it] would file a notice to strike or remove the motion from the docket." Id. She emphasized that "[a]s soon as I receive your revised responses, I will submit such a document to the court." Id. In a subsequent email of that day, Ms. Swing again emphasized that "once we receive your [responses to the] interrogatories, we would withdraw the motion to compel as I explained in the previous email." See Exhibit 2. On that same day, Google provided the supplemental responses. See Exhibit 3. Mr. Al-Salam stated, in the email, that "To the extent you still have any questions or concerns, please tell me. Otherwise, I hope this resolves the motion to compel." Id. Verified responses were also provided on October 8, 2008. See Exhibit 4. Based upon Stelor's counsel's promises, Google had assumed that Stelor was withdrawing the Motion to Compel. Google understands that plaintiff has now filed a motion to compel additional information, beyond what was filed in the Supplemental Responses. Google will address that motion separately, to the extent necessary.

41063-0037/LEGAL14864462.1

2

DATED: November 3, 2008. Ft. Lauderdale, FL Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Samantha Tesser Haimo ADORNO & YOSS LLP Jan Douglas Atlas Florida Bar No. 226246 [e-mail] Samantha Tesser Haimo Florida Bar No. 0148016 [e-mail] 350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] PERKINS COIE LLP Ramsey M. Al-Salam (pro hac vice) [e-mail] Elana S. Matt (pro hac vice) [e-mail] 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.

41063-0037/LEGAL14864462.1

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of November, 2008, I served a copy of the foregoing Defendant Google Inc.'s Response to Order Compelling Better Answers on the following persons, via CM/ECF filing: Kevin C. Kaplan David J. Zack Morgan L. Swing Coffey Burlington Office in the Grove, Penthouse 2699 S. Bayshore Drive, Penthouse A Miami, FL 33133 /s/ Samantha Tesser Haimo Samantha Tesser Haimo

41063-0037/LEGAL14864462.1

4