Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 256

MEMORANDUM motion for discovery 246 , memorandum in support of motion 247 by Google Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Cyrluk, Jonathan)

EXHIBIT 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION VULCAN GOLF, LLC, JOHN B. SANFILIPPPO & SONS, INC., BLITZ REALTY GROUP, INC., and VINCENTE E. "BO" JACKSON, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC., OVERSEE.NET, SEDO LLC, DOTSTER, INC., AKA REVENUEDIRECT.COM, and JOHN DOES I-X, Defendants. ) Case No. 07 CV 3371 ) ) ) ) The Honorable Blanche M. Manning ) ) Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

REPLY DECLARATION OF MICHAEL H. PAGE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LIMIT DISCOVERY AND FOR SCHEDULING ORDER

I, Michael H. Page, declare as follows: 1. I am a partner in the firm of Durie Tangri Page Lemley Roberts & Kent LLP, counsel of

record for Defendant Google Inc. in the above-captioned matter. Unless otherwise indicated, the matters set forth herein are of my own personal knowledge, and if called I can and will testify competently thereto. 2. In late 2007 or early 2008, I participated in a telephonic "meet and confer" conference with

all counsel, including Plaintiff's counsel Robert Foote. One of the subjects of that conference was Defendants' proposal that discovery remained stayed pending resolution of Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Plaintiffs proposed, in the alternative, that discovery should proceed only on "merits" issues, and that "damages-related discovery" be stayed. 3. I asked Mr. Foote to identify which, if any, of his discovery requests would qualify as

"damages related," and thus be stayed. He could not identify any. I then asked again whether there was any discovery Plaintiffs had propounded that would be deferred under his proposal. Again, he could not identify any. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 4th day of June, 2009 at San Francisco, California.

Michael H. Page

1