Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. et al

Filing 121

MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Motion to Compel by Function Media, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Nelson, Justin)

Download PDF
Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. et al Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION FUNCTION MEDIA, L.L.C. Plaint iffs, vs. GOOGLE, INC. AND YAHOO, INC. Defendants. § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 2007-CV-279 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION TO EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO COMPEL Funct ion Media respectfully requests that this Court expedite briefing and argument in the concurrently-filed Motion to Compel. Google opposes this request, but it has not given any reason why. Indeed, as Google has acknowledged, this issue is inextricably intertwined with Google's Motion for Protective Order, with many overlapping facts. The Motion to Compel seeks documents from a group of senior-level Google officials. The Motion for Protective Order concerns whether three of those same executives can be deposed. On July 25, 2009, Google admitted that these two motions should be heard together: "[I]t is most efficient for the parties and the Court if those apex witness issues are addressed at the same hearing." Exh. E to Motion to Compel (email from Stan Karas to Justin Nelson). Given Google's stated position, Function Media asked Google to reconsider its position on whether to expedite briefing on this motion, given that the briefing for the Motion for Protective Order will be complete next week. Google refused to reconsider, presumably not wanting a quick hearing on this point despite the upcoming discovery deadline and the length of time that this issue has 960077v1/010020 1 been a topic of discussion between the parties, as detailed in the accompanying motion and response. Moreover, because the parties already will be in front of this Court on August 12, 2009 for the Markman hearing, Function Media respectfully suggests that it is most efficient for all parties to have the hearing on these two motions on that same date. Function Media thus proposes the following schedule so that this Court can hear both the Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Compel on August 12: July 28, 2009: August 5, 2009: August 10, 2009: August 12, 2009: Opening Brief Due Response Due Reply Due Hearing Respectfully submitted, /s/ Justin A. Nelson Max L. Tribble, Jr. State Bar No. 20213950 Email: SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100 Houston, Texas, 77002 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 Facsimile: (713) 654-6666 Lead Attorney for Plaintiffs OF COUNSEL: Just in A. Nelson, State Bar No. 24034766 SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1201Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3000 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 Facsimile: (206) 516-3883 960077v1/010020 2 Joseph S. Grinstein, State Bar No. 24002188 Aimée Robert, State Bar No. 24046729 SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, Texas 77002-5096 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 Fax: (713) 654-6666 Email: Email: Jeremy Brandon, State Bar No. 24040563 SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. Suite 5100 901 Main Street Dallas, Texas 75202-3775 Telephone: (214) 754-1900 Fax: (214) 754-1933 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Counsel for plaintiffs have conferred with counsel for defendants on July 24-28, 2009. They have indicated their opposit ion to this motion. /s/ Justin A. Nelson Justin A. Nelson 960077v1/010020 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that all counsel of record, who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served this 28th day of July, 2009 with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CD-5(a)(3). /s/ Justin A. Nelson Justin A. Nelson 960077v1/010020 960082v1/010020 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?