Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 255

RESPONSE by John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc., Blitz Realty Group, Inc., Vincent E Jackson, Vulcan Golf, LLC to MOTION by Defendant Google Inc. for discovery to be limited and for scheduling order 246 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Foote, Robert)

EXHIBIT C

Durie Tangri Page Lemley Roberts & Kent LLP
Michael H. Page [phone] [e-mail] May 28, 2009 Robert M. Foote Foote, Meyers, Mielke & Flowers LLC 28 N. First St. Geneva, IL 60134 Re: Summary Judgment Schedule

VIA PDF

Dear Bob: Thank you for your letter of yesterday, proposing an alternative approach to staging discovery and summary judgment on the issue of whether Google is subject to liability under the ACPA. Your proposal merits consideration, and may be workable. However, before we can agree to it, we will need to know what you mean by "ACPA discovery." Under Google's proposal, the scope of discovery would be determined by the summary judgment motion itself, under established Rule 56(f) principles: each party would be entitled to discovery necessary to bring and oppose that motion, and the Court would be able to resolve any disputes regarding that scope by reference to the pleadings. Your proposal removes that objective reference point, and thus we would need to replace it with something else. Before agreeing, we would need to see a more detailed description of what you consider to be within-and outside of--the rubric of "ACPA discovery." If you can provide us with that information, we will be happy to consider it. I look forward to speaking with you further in this regard. If you include your letter with your opposition papers, please also include this response. Very Truly Yours,

Michael H. Page cc: All counsel
332 Pine Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94104 | T [phone] | F [phone] | www.durietangri.com