PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 257

MOTION to Quash and, MOTION for Protective Order to Preclude Deposition of Johanna Shelton by Google Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Declaration of Brian Cannon, #2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Brian Cannon, #3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Brian Cannon, #4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Brian Cannon, #5 Exhibit D to Declaration of Brian Cannon, #6 Exhibit E to Declaration of Brian Cannon, #7 Exhibit F to Declaration of Brian Cannon, #8 Exhibit G to Declaration of Brian Cannon, #9 Exhibit H to Declaration of Brian Cannon, #10 Exhibit I to Declaration of Brian Cannon, #11 Exhibit J to Declaration of Brian Cannon, #12 Exhibit K to Declaration of Brian Cannon, #13 Exhibit L to Declaration of Brian Cannon, #14 Affidavit Declaration of Johanna Shelton, #15 Text of Proposed Order)(Cannon, Brian)

EXHIBIT I

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers | silicon valley

555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO. [phone] WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS [e-mail]

August 12, 2009 VIA E-MAIL Ari Rafilson The Rafilson Law Firm, PLLC 1318 Royal Palm Lane Carollton, TX 75007 Re: PA Advisors v. Google Inc., et al.; Bright Response v. Google Inc., et al.

Dear Ari: I write in response to your letter of today's date regarding the deposition of Johanna Shelton in PA Advisors. As has already been communicated to Plaintiff, the deposition will not go forward on August 14. The parties met and conferred on this issue, and others, on July 20, 2009. It was Google's understanding that Plaintiff agreed at the meet and confer to withdraw the Shelton subpoena until after claim construction briefing had been completed. Plaint iff, however, did not withdraw the subpoena and continued to request a date for the deposition. On July 23, we asked you to explain in writing why Plaintiff believes the deposition of Ms. Shelton is necessary. You have not responded to my July 23 letter. On August 6, following the deposition of Mr. Schilace, we again asked you for any information as to why Plaint iff is demanding to take the deposition of Ms. Shelton. You refused to provide any such information and said you were unprepared to discuss the issue. As Mr. Cannon stated at that time, we are not aware that Ms. Shelton has any relevant information to this patent case and ask Plaintiff to explain its reasons for demanding the deposition.

quinn emanuel urquhart oliver & hedges, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone] NEW YORK | 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone] SAN FRANCISCO | 50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111 | TEL [phone]
FAX (415)

875-6700

01980.51319/3052117.1 South Wacker Drive, Suite 230, Chicago, Illinois 60606-6301 | TEL [phone] CHICAGO | 250

463-2962 LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG ,United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone] TOKYO | Akasaka Twin Tower Main Building, 6th Floor, 17-22 Akasaka 2-Chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-0052 ,Japan | TEL [phone]
FAX +81

FAX (312)

3 5561-1712

We are now in receipt of Bright Response's subpoenas for documents of Johanna Shelton, Pablo Chavez, Richard Sutherland Witt, Rob Tai, Alan Davidson, and Harry Wingo, all of which are policy analysts, counsel, and/or lobbyists from Google's Washington, D.C. office. Preliminarily, we believe it is improper for Plaintiffs to repeatedly send document subpoenas for Google employees. If Plaintiffs believe they are entitled to the documents requested, they should serve requests for production of documents, or identify such categories of documents in a letter to Google. Google will then respond appropriately. Plaint iffs should not use the subpoena process as an end-run around party discovery. More importantly, it is apparent from the categories of documents requested of these individuals that Plaintiffs are improperly seeking discovery of protected lobbying and political activities and/or attorney-client privileged information. Given that these subpoenas and Ms. Shelton's deposition likely address the same issues, we propose that the parties agree to take Ms. Shelton's deposition off calendar, such that Google need not file a motion for a protective order on August 14, and meet and confer regarding the discoverability of Google lobbying efforts which will be applicable to both Ms. Shelton's deposition and the outstanding Bright Response subpoenas. Should the parties fail to reach agreement on the issue, then Google will file a motion for a protective order in both cases that will address the issue of Google lobbying and political participation. We believe it would be most efficient to simply address these issues together. Also, Google recently had to file a motion for a protective order in Bright Response only to have Plaintiffs withdraw its subpoenas of Google executives after Google's motion was filed. This should not happen again and we ask for Plaintiff to confirm now whether it intends to oppose a motion for protective order as to Ms. Shelton's deposition. In light of the above, we request Plaintiff agree to move the date of its PA Advisors' subpoena of Johanna Shelton for deposition to Friday, August 21, in particular to allow the parties time to negotiate an appropriate approach to resolving these issues. Please confirm that this is acceptable to Plaintiff by 2 pm Central time tomorrow. Very truly yours, /s/ Andrea Pallios Roberts
51319/2948829.1

01980.51319/3052117.1

2