PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 359

RESPONSE in Opposition re #350 SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE filed by Yahoo! Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C)(Doan, Jennifer)

Download PDF
PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 359 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PA ADVISORS, LLC Plaintiff v. GOOGLE INC., et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-480 RRR DEFENDANT YAHOO! INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE Defendant Yahoo! Inc. ("Yahoo!") files this opposition in response to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave filed on January 11, 2010.1 Plaintiff refers to Yahoo! multiple times in its Motion for Leave, but does not expressly seek leave to file amended infringement contentions against Yahoo!. In fact, Plaintiff misrepresents the discussions which took place between Plaintiff and Yahoo!. Similar to its actions with Google, Plaintiff unilaterally amended infringement contentions served upon Yahoo! without seeking leave of this Court. Pursuant to the Docket Control Order, Plaintiff had until October 30, 2009 to serve infringement contentions under P.R. 3-6(a), and Yahoo! extended that date twice in response to requests from Plaintiff. On December 16, 2009, Plaintiff and Yahoo! participated in an inperson meet and confer in Dallas, Texas regarding a number of discovery related issues. See 1 Although Yahoo!'s counsel requested a copy of the sealed pleading from Plaintiff's counsel, Plaintiff's counsel declined and noted that it was solely against Google. See Exhibit C. Since that time, Yahoo! obtained a copy of the sealed pleading from Google's counsel. Upon review, Yahoo! notes that Plaintiff made a number of misstatements about Yahoo! in this sealed motion, which Plaintiff declined to provide to Yahoo!. DEFENDANT YAHOO! INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE Page 1 Doan Decl. Exhibit A, 2. During the in-person meet and confer, Yahoo! offered to allow Plaintiff to serve amended infringement contentions on December 21, 2009 to the extent, and only to the extent, Plaintiff had a good faith basis to amend pursuant to P.R. 3-6(a). Id. at 3. Counsel for Plaintiff, Andrew Spangler, informed Yahoo! that Plaintiff would be amending its infringement contentions on other grounds, not solely pursuant to 3-6(a). Id. Yahoo! did not agree to this request, and an agreement did not materialize which would allow Plaintiff to amend its infringement contentions on any grounds without leave of Court. Id. Plaintiff, without explaining a basis for doing so and without seeking leave of the Court, served its Amended Contentions on December 21, 2009. Id. at 4; See Exhibit B, Plaintiff's Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions Against Yahoo! hereinafter ("Amended Disclosure"). Because Plaintiff did not seek leave to file its amended infringement contentions against Yahoo!, Yahoo! requests that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion to the extent it seeks leave to amend as against Yahoo!. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jennifer H. Doan Jennifer H. Doan TX Bar No. 0880905 Joshua Reed Thane TX Bar No. 24060713 John Scott Andrews TX Bar No. 24064823 HALTOM & DOAN Crown Executive Center, Suite 100 6500 Summerhill Road Texarkana, TX 75503 Tel: (903) 255-1002 Fax: (903) 255-0800 DEFENDANT YAHOO! INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE Page 2 Jason C. White HOWREY LLP 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: (312) 595-1239 Fax: (312) 595-2250 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT YAHOO! INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). All other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by certified mail, return receipt requested, on this the 20th day of January, 2010. /s/ Jennifer H. Doan Jennifer H. Doan DEFENDANT YAHOO! INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE Page 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?