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

Filing 91

RESPONSE in Opposition re 83 MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY INTO NON-ACCUSED TECHNOLOGY filed by Yahoo!, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of M. Lane ISO Opposition to MTC, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18)(Lane, Michael)

Exhibit 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

FUCTION MEDIA LLC
Plaintiff,
vs.

GOOGLE INC. AND YAHOO!, INC.
Defendants.

§ § Civil Action No. 2007-CV-279 § § § § §
§

~ JURY TRIA DEMAED
§ §

YAHOO!, INC. 'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO YAHOO!, INC. (No.9)
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Defendant and

Counterclaim Plaintiff Yahoo!, Inc. ("Yahoo!") hereby objects and responds as follows to

Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories, served by Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant
Function Media, LLC ("Function Media").

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Yahoo! makes the following General Objections to Function Media's Second Set
of Interrogatories, which apply regardless of whether a General Objection is specifically
incorporated into the response.

1. Yahoo! objects to each interrogatory, definition, or instruction to the
extent it seeks or purports to impose obligations beyond or inconsistent with those imposed by

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the applicable rules and orders of this Court, or any
stipulation or agreement of the paries in this action.

2. Yahoo! objects to Function Media's definition of "sales" as vague,
overbroad and unduly burdensome.

3. Yahoo! objects to Function, Media's definition of "Accused Product" as
vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome, in par because the definition includes products,

systems, technologies, functionalities, and services not specifically disclosed in Function

Media's First Amended P.R. 3-1 Disclosures of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions.

4. Yahoo! objects to each interrogatory, definition, or instruction to the
extent it seeks information that is confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information of a

third pary that is in Yahoo!'s possession subject to an obligation to a third pary. Yahoo! wil
provide such information only to the extent it can do so consistent with its obligations to any
third paries.

5. Yahoo! objects to each interrogatory, definition, or instruction to the
extent it seeks information not within the possession, custody, or control of Yahoo!. Yahoo! wil
only provide relevant, non-privileged information that is within Yahoo!'s present possession,

custody, or control and available to Yahoo! after a reasonable investigation.
6. No objection or response made in this document shall be deemed to be an

admission by Yahoo! as to the existence or non-existence of responsive information or
documents, unless specifically so stated.
7. By making the accompanying responses and objections to the

interrogatory, Yahoo! does not waive, and hereby expressly reserves, its right to assert any and

all objections as to the admissibility of such documents or information into evidence in this
action, or in any other proceeding, on any and all grounds, including, but not limited to
competency, relevancy, materiality, and privilege.

9. Yahoo! objects to each interrogatory, definition, or instruction -to the
extent that it calls for information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or work

2

product immunity. Yahoo! does not intend to waive any applicable privilege or immunity by

these responses, and nothing herein shall be deemed to give rise to such a waiver.

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO.9:

State all revenues, profits, financial data, and usage statistics derived from or
attributable in any way to usage, licensing, support, sales, maintenance, consulting, training

hosting, implementation, or customization associated with the Accused Products, any
functionality therein, or any other products or functionalities sold to or used by customers who

use the Accused Products. Your response should include data from 2002 until the present,
broken down annually and by quarer.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.9:
In addition to its General Objections, Yahoo! objects to this interrogatory to the
extent it calls for information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or work product

immunity. Yahoo! further objects to this interrogatory as vague. Moreover, Yahoo! objects to
this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Yahoo! further objects to this

interrogatory to the extent it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence, paricularly to the extent that it requests information regarding products, systems,

technologies, functionalities, and services not specifically disclosed in Function Media's First
Amended P.R. 3-1 Disclosures of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions. Further,

Yahoo! objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is otherwise
available from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive,

including documents produced by Yahoo! in response to Function Media's document requests.

3

DATED: December 17, 2008

Respectfully submitted,

r

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LL

s
Matthew D. Powers (Bar. No. 104795) matthew. powers (f weil.com Douglas E. Lumish (Bar. No. 183863) doug.lumish (fwei1.com WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Silicon Valley Office 201 Redwood Shores Pkwy. Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Tel: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

Attorneys for Defendant Yahoo!, Inc.

4