Weather Underground, Incorporated v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Incorporated et al

Filing 246

DECLARATION by William A. Delgado re 243 MOTION in Limine No. 4 filed by Connexus Corporation, Firstlook, Incorporated, Navigation Catalyst Systems, Incorporated (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Delgado, William)

EXHIBIT B

Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND, INC., )
a Michigan Corporation,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
) Case No. 2:09-CV-10756
)
NAVIGATION CATALYST SYSTEMS,
) Volume I
INC., a Delaware corporation; )
BASIC FUSION, INC., a Delaware )
corporation; CONNEXUS CORP., a )
Delaware corporation; and
)
FIRSTLOOK, INC., a Delaware
)
corporation,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________)

- CONFIDENTIAL - UNDER SEAL-

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DONNIE J. MISINO
Los Angeles, California
Friday, August 20, 2010

Reported by:

Judy Samson
CSR No. 6916

Page 2
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND, INC., )
a Michigan Corporation,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
) Case No. 2:09-CV-10756
)
NAVIGATION CATALYST SYSTEMS,
) Volume I
INC., a Delaware corporation; )
BASIC FUSION, INC., a Delaware )
corporation; CONNEXUS CORP., a )
Delaware corporation; and
)
FIRSTLOOK, INC., a Delaware
)
corporation,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________)

14
15
16
17

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DONNIE J. MISINO,

18

taken on behalf of the Plaintiff, at 707 Wilshire

19

Boulevard, Suite 3850, Los Angeles, California,

20

beginning at 10:04 a.m. and ending at 5:39 p.m.,

21

on Friday, August 20, 2010, before Judy Samson,

22

a Certified Shorthand Reporter Number 6916.

23
24
25

Page 135
1
2
3

domain gets proxied?
A

I believe I may have been copied on some

e-mails where that topic was -- was brought up.

4

MR. SCHAEFER:

5

Okay.

6

I'm going to mark this.

89 is a June 18th letter from

Mr. Delgado to me, concerning a variety of issues.

7

(Plaintiff's Exhibit 89 was marked

8

for identification by the deposition

9

reporter and is attached hereto.)

10
11
12

BY MR. SCHAEFER:
Q

In the second -- number one, do you recall

seeing this letter before?

13

A

I don't believe I've seen this one.

14

Q

Okay.

Mr. Delgado is indicating that he

15

needs more time to review e-mails before producing

16

the e-mail components of the discovery requests in

17

the order.

18

e-mails that are -- needed to be reviewed for

19

responsiveness.

20

And he notes that there are over 600,000

Do you see that?

21

A

Yes.

22

Q

Do you know where that 600,000 number came

23

from?

24

A

I can assume, though I don't know.

25

Q

Okay.

So you didn't have any personal

Page 136
1

involvement in figuring out how many e-mail -- or

2

assembling e-mail databases?

3
4
5
6

A

Not the ones that this refers to.

I only

searched my own personal e-mail.
Q

Okay.

Did you have any discussions with

anyone about the process for accumulating e-mails?

7

A

No.

8

Q

Do you know how that occurred?

9

A

I only know that Bob Falkenberg was

10
11

handling that.
Q

Okay.

That's all I know.
Are you generally aware of the

12

e-mails that have been produced in this case as part

13

of the production?

14

A

Beyond my own, no.

15

Q

Okay.

I want you to assume that there are

16

generally two categories of e-mails.

17

see in the order, the e-mails that went to the

18

parking pages concerning potential purchases of

19

domains; and, two, a category of e-mails related to

20

trademark issues.

21

One, as you'll

Have you seen either category of e-mails,

22

or did you produce any e-mails in either of those

23

categories?

24

MR. DELGADO:

I'm going to object to that

25

characterization of the order.

Page 137
1

THE WITNESS:

2

to counsel.

3

I believe I sent some e-mails

BY MR. SCHAEFER:

4

Q

And if only about 1,500 e-mails have been

5

produced in this case, do you have any understanding

6

as to what happened to the other 598,500 e-mails

7

that haven't been produced or the basis for

8

nonproduction?

9

A

No, I don't know.

10

It appears that these were being reviewed

11

for responsiveness, and likely they were judged or

12

deemed not to be within that.

13
14
15

Q

Do you know what search was run on those

e-mails to determine responsiveness?
A

16

Only -MR. DELGADO:

17

attorney work product.

18

MR. SCHAEFER:

Objection; that calls for

Well, not privileged because

19

in this case, you and I are supposed to work that

20

out.

21

the search that was run on it.

22

MR. DELGADO:

23
24
25

them.

And so I'm certainly entitled to know what was

I can tell you I reviewed

I reviewed every single one.
MR. SCHAEFER:

Would you -- would you

provide me with the search logic on that so I can

Page 138
1

take a look and see if there's anything --

2

MR. DELGADO:

On the 600- -- you want to go

3

off the -- let's go off the record.

4

what happened.

5

MR. SCHAEFER:

6

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

I'll tell you

Sure.
This marks the end of

7

videotape No. 2, Volume I, in the deposition of

8

Mr. Donnie J. Misino.

9

And the time is 1:50 p.m.

10

(Discussion held off the record.)

11

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

This marks the beginning

12

of videotape No. 3, Volume I, in the deposition of

13

Mr. Donnie J. Misino.

14
15
16
17

And the time is 1:53 p.m.
BY MR. SCHAEFER:
Q

Okay.

Mr. Misino, could you take a look at

paragraph 4 of the order, which is Exhibit 87.

18

A

Okay.

19

Q

Okay.

So this sets the relevant period for

20

the search of documents except if there was any more

21

narrow search time frame noted.

22
23

Did you recall reviewing this paragraph as
you went about your job of assembling documents?

24

A

Yes.

25

Q

And was this the -- the time period that