Performance Pricing, Inc. v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 241

MOTION to Compel Production of Documents by Third Parties Neal Cohen and Vista IP Law Group, LLP by AOL LLC, Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Stipulation Regarding Defendant Google Inc. and AOL LLC's Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Third Parties Neal Cohen and Vista IP Law Group, LLP, # 2 Declaration of Emily C. O'Brien in Support of Motion to Compel, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Exhibit N, # 17 Exhibit O, # 18 Exhibit P, # 19 Declaration of Christin Cho in Opposition to Motion to Compel, # 20 Errata 1, # 21 Exhibit 2, # 22 Exhibit 3, # 23 Proposed Order Granting Defendant Google Inc. and AOL LLC's Motion to Compel)(O'Brien, Emily) Modified on 9/25/2009 (sm, ). Modified on 9/25/2009 (sm, ).

x

Dockets.Justia.com

^,;

Page 1 1 CN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DCSTRCCT OF TEXAS 2 MARSHALL DIVCS[ON 3 4 PERFOCZNCANCE PRCCCNG, INC., 5 Plaintiff, 6 vs. No_ 2:QT-CV-432(LED) 7 GOOGLE, [NC., AOL LLC, MCCROSOFT CORPORATCON, 8 YAHOO? INC., IAC SEARCH

_

& MEDIA, INC., and A9.COM. 9 INC.,
l0 Defendants_ I1 12 l3 14 l^ DEPOSITION OF NEAL M. CO[-CEN 16 Irvine, California l7 Wednesday, February I I, 209 !$ C9 20 21 Reported by: DENISE BARDSLEY 22 CSR No. l I241 23 JOB No _ l0^()SS 24 25

-

EXH^BlT ^ PAGE 3--.-

Page l96 Q Let me just ask you globally, and if you need 1 2 me to ask more specifically, for any of the entries in 3 your privilege log, if 1 was to ask you whether there 4 were any specific targets oflitigation --of 5 anticipated litigation , would you be able to identify 6 any for any of these documents? A Not without reading there all and -- no, [ 7 8 don't know that there were any. Q Can you think ofany litigation targets that 9 10 Mr. Lin ever had? I 1 MS. CHO: Objection; Form_ 12 TI-IE WITNESS: ( can state the obvious. There 13 is a lawsuit going on right now, but --

-

14 BY MR. PERLSON:
Q Do you understand that Mr. Lin is prosecuting IS 16 that lawsuit? A 1 don't understand that , actually. 17 Q OI*ay. So my question is: Do you have l8 knowledge of any specific litigation -- let me 6ac1` up i9 20 here.
2l Do you have knowledge of any specific target 22 of anticipated litigation by PricePlay?

_

---- ^^^

A For example, if PricePlay said, "I'm going to 23 24 go sue Google"? Q Right. 23

Page 147
1 A At some }point t did, yes.

2 Q GVhen did }'ou first have that knowledge? 3 A I'm wondering if that's relevant information. 4 C'm thinking that through my head right nou-. S I believe that would 6e privileged 6 information. 7 Q So }'Da're saying -S A 1 believe the only ^v°ay 1 would know about it 9 is communication tivith the client. 10 Q So you're refusing to ans.^^er that question? tt A Yes, on the basis of that privilege. l2 (Refusal to answer.) 13 8Y MR. PIJRLSON: t4 Q Let me ask you this. t3efore the '2^3 patent IS issued in Decemberof'4^ -1b A Okay_

FJ^H^B^T i PAGE ^ 7

---

t

^

^

a

s

l7 I$

Q -- were you aware of any specific targets of any anticipated litigation involving PricePlay or

l9 Mr. Lin? A [believe that the answer is privileged, 20 2 [ again.
22 23 24 Q So you're refusing to ans4ver that question? A [3ased on the privilege, yes, because the only way [would [`now that is from my client.

2^ (Refusal to answer.}

---.-- -

EKH^B^T ^ PAGE ^

^^.

Page 238 1 1, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand 2 Reporter of the State of California, do hereby 3 certify: 4 That the foregoing proceedings were taken 5 before me at the time and puce herein set forth; that 5 any witnesses in the Foregoing proceedings , prior to 7 testifying, were duly sworn; that a record ofthe 8 proceedings was trade by me using machine shorthand 9 which was thereafter transcribed under my direction; 11^ that the foregoing transcript is a true record of the [ t testimony given. l2 Further, that if the foregoing pertains to [3 the original transcript of a deposition in a Federal 14 Case, before completion of the proceedings, review of [ 5 the transcript [ x J was [ ]was not required. 16 [further certify I am neither financially
l7 interested in the action nor a relative or employee of [ 8 any attorney or party to this action.

19 [N WITNESS WHEREOF, I ha^^e this-dates - 20 subscribed my name. 2l 22 Dated: 23 24 2^ DENISE BARDSLEY CS R No. i i 2=1 !

_
__ .

FXHfBfT ^ PAGE _.^.^.,..^._