Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 360

NOTICE by Bright Response LLC of Filing Letter Brief of David Pridham in Support of Bright Response, LLC's Opposed Motion at Docket Number 356 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Pridham, David)

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID M. PRIDHAM
25 Linden Road Barrington, Rhode Island 02806 www.pridhamiplaw.com

____________________________________
David M. Pridham Telephone: [phone] Mobile: [phone] Fax: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail]
June 10, 2010 The Honorable Chad Everingham United States Magistrate Judge 100 East Houston Street Marshall, Texas 75670

Via CM/ECF
Re: Bright Response, LLC v. Google Inc., et al.; No. 2:07-cv-371-CE Dear Judge Everingham: This correspondence relates to the motion filed yesterday, June 9, 2010, by my client Bright Response, LLC (Dkt. No. 356) regarding the parties' efforts to agree to a modified Protective Order that complies with the Court's June 2, 2010 Order (Dkt. No. 349) limiting my access to certain Attorney's Eyes Only ("AEO")documents. I file this letter brief separately to reinforce why a logical demarcation of my access to AEO documents is necessary. First, the protective order terms that Defendants have proposed--as set forth in Bright Response's motion--were such that I would be considered in violation of the Court's Protective Order since the beginning of this lawsuit. As stated in Bright Response's filings on this matter, I have already reviewed hundreds of different confidential and Attorney's Eyes Only documents, which the July 2008 Protective Order permitted and to which both Defendants agreed. I have also been involved in both the technical and damages expert report preparations. The entry of the Defendants' proposed Protective Order could arguably render those activities (undertaken prior to the Court's June 2 Order) and my review of those materials produced by the Defendants prior to the Court's June 2 Order, violations of Defendants' proposed Protective Order. Second, even though the Defendants asserted that they would be severely harmed if I had access to AEO documents, Yahoo was sending AEO documents as late as June 1, 2010. I will be glad to submit these documents in camera for the Court's review upon request. Third, insofar as a proposed revised Protective Order reaches further to implicate documents that I have already reviewed in the past two years and that Yahoo continues to send to me, such an order would seriously undermine my ability to practice law and represent clients effectively. I appreciate the Court's consideration of this matter. I am available to answer any questions

the Court may have in connection with the same. Very truly yours,

David Pridham