Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 224

RESPONSE in Opposition re 222 MOTION for Protective Order Modification AND REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY HEARING, IF NECESSARY filed by Bright Response LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Andrew D. Weiss, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Weiss, Andrew)

EXHIBIT B

T h e Rafilson Law Firm, PLLC The 1 3 1 8 Royal Palm Lane, Carrollton, TX 75007 1318
Ari Rafilson Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail] VIA EMAIL TO [e-mail] September 17, 2009 Jason White Howrey LLP 321 North Clark Street, Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60654 Re: Dear Jason: This letter memorializes today's in-person meet and confer between the parties in the abovereferenced case. 1. Source Code: Counsel for Yahoo committed to provide source code related to the accused instrumentalities by October 7. During this meet and confer you refused to provide any explanation whatsoever for your failure to fulfill your commitment to provide, in writing, details regarding the code Yahoo initially plans to provide in this case. That being said, during the meet and confer you stated that Yahoo would provide the "code for receiving and processing the queries" for Bright Response's initial code inspection session. 2. 30(b)(6) Depositions: Counsel for Yahoo admitted that it had not provided dates for my client's outstanding 30(b)(6) requests. Yahoo's counsel committed to work to promptly schedule all outstanding depositions, and requested that my client identify which should take priority. As stated during that meeting, topics related to the operation of the accused instrumentalities (and associated source code) should take priority. Please note that these depositions should take place as soon as possible as Bright Response will need such discovery in order to determine promptly if it needs to supplement its infringement contentions. Given the length of time that these requests have been outstanding, Yahoo should be able to provide dates next week. As a related matter, Bright Response appreciates Yahoo's counsel's commitment to not hold Bright Response responsible for any delays resulting from Yahoo's actions or those of its counsel. Bright Response v. Google Inc., et al.

Sincerely,

Ari Rafilson