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

Filing 153

Second MOTION to Expedite Motion to Compel by Function Media, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Text of Proposed Order)(Nelson, Justin)

EXHIBIT

4

Page

I of2

From: Justin A. Nelson Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:20 AM To: Billie D. Salinas; Stacy Schulze; Jeremy Brandon; Max L. Tribble; Joseph S. Grinstein Cc: Google-Function Media; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
ï[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; 'rcbunt@pbatyler,com'; '[e-mail]' Subject: FM: Summary of yesterday's evening call Billie/Amy

-

On yesterday evening's call, we discussed the following:

1. lnterrogatory 11 - I told you that we wanted to be able to track the value of a pre-lPO share, including any splits, dividends, etc. You told me that you would try to obtain this information, and that no motions practice was necessary. You told me this information might take a bit to produce. We tentatively agreed that you would have this information by Friday, August 28. 2. Acquisitions price lisVvaluation
reports - I told you that we needed either the price list (including whether the transaction was in stock) or the valuation reports for the list of transactions, and that this fell squarely within the GeorgiaPacific factors. I also stated that we have been asking for the valuation reports for the beginning, that we were willing to accept a price list to ease Google's alleged burden, but that it now seemed easier to simply produce the valuation reports given that Google would have to recreate a price list. I said that I intended to file a motion tomorrow on this given the prior meets and confers. You stated that you were still trying to obtain client approval for this, that you did not think that the documents were relevant under Georgia Pacific, but understood how we and a court could think they were relevant. agreed to refrain from filing a Motion tomorrow on this while you checked again with the client on producing this in exchange for your agreement on an expedited schedule to hear this at Markman. I suggested having simulataneous briefs of a paragraph or page long or so due in a joint filing to tee this up for hearing on Markman day. You stated that 1 page was too short. I suggested 5 pages. You suggested that the Opening Brief be due on Friday and the Responsive Brief due on Monday. I agreed to that schedule.
I

3. Depositions -

We offered September 21 tor Hasan and either Sep 28 or 29 for Burke. You are checking on other dates, and stated that you will give them to us on a rolling basis. I emphasized the urgency of getting us dates and nailing down a schedule.

From : Billie D. Salinas [mailto : billiesalinas@qu innemanuel,com] Sent: MonBlL712009 11:36 PM To: Stacy Schulze; Justin A. Nelson; Jeremy Brandon; Max L. Tribble; Joseph S. Grinstein Cc: Google-Function Media; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]' Subject: Mr. Zoufonoun's deposition
Justin,

Amin Zoufonoun is available to be deposed on September 1 at Quinn's office in San Francisco. Please let me know if that date is acceptable to you.
Thanks,

8/19/2009

Page2 of2

Billie

811912009