Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc
RESPONSE in Opposition re 100 Opposed MOTION to Strike 97 Response in Opposition to Motion, for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief in Response to Google's Motion to Transfer, and, in the Alternative, Cross-Motion to Stay Case Pending Resolution of Google's Trans filed by Google Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Andrea Pallios Roberts in Support of Google's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike, # 2 Exhibit A)(Perlson, David)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP
AND NETSTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00893-RG
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DECLARATION OF ANDREA PALLIOS ROBERTS IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE
INC.’S OPPOSITION TO ROCKSTAR’S MOTION TO STRIKE UNDER LOCAL RULE
CV-7(A) GOOGLE INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO GOOGLE’S MOTION TO
TRANSFER, AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CROSS-MOTION TO STAY CASE
PENDING RESOLUTION OF GOOGLE’S TRANSFER MOTION
I, Andrea Pallios Roberts, declare as follows:
I am an attorney at the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP,
counsel for Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the
facts stated herein and if called to testify could and would competently testify thereto.
On June 20, 2014, the parties met and conferred regarding Rockstar’s request for
leave to file a supplemental brief regarding Google’s Motion to Change Venue (“Transfer
Motion”). David A. Perlson and I participated in the meet and confer on behalf of Google.
Amanda Bonn and Jeff Rambin participated on behalf of Rockstar. During that meet and confer,
Google’s counsel explained to Rockstar’s counsel that Google is concerned that Rockstar’s
requested relief would delay resolution of the pending Transfer Motion. Google’s counsel asked
Rockstar’s counsel if Rockstar would agree to stay the litigation pending resolution of the
Transfer Motion to alleviate the prejudice to Google. Rockstar did not agree.
Given Google’s concerns regarding further delaying resolution of the January 10
Transfer Motion, on the morning of June 24, I emailed Rockstar’s counsel to inform Rockstar
that Google intended to file its opposition to Rockstar’s motion that day and that its opposition
would include an alternative request for relief of staying the litigation pending resolution of the
Transfer Motion, which Google understood, based on the June 20 meet and confer, Rockstar
opposed. In my email, I asked if Rockstar would agree to an expedited briefing schedule.
Rockstar responded to Google’s request in my email by claiming that it was “the
first time” it had heard of Google’s intent to seek a stay from the Court, and that the parties had
not met and conferred on the issue. Although Google disagreed, I offered to meet and confer
again that day so that Google could file its briefs that day. Rockstar’s counsel stated that it was
not available to meet and confer until the following day.
The parties met and conferred again on June 25 to discuss Google’s Opposition
and alternative request for relief of a stay pending resolution of the Transfer Motion, and
Google’s Motion to Expedite. Mr. Perlson, Mark Mann, and I participated in the meet and
confer on behalf of Google. Ms. Bonn and Mr. Rambin participated on behalf of Rockstar.
During the meet and confer, Rockstar’s counsel argued that Google’s request for a stay should be
filed as a separate motion because, if it were, Rockstar would be entitled to a fifteen page
opposition brief, and a sur-reply giving Rockstar the last word on the issue. In response to this
concern, Google’s counsel offered to give Rockstar additional pages for its reply, and to discuss
additional briefing. Google’s counsel did not condition that offer on Rockstar’s agreement on
the expedited briefing schedule. But, Rockstar’s counsel responded that there was no point in
discussing those issues because Rockstar objects to Google’s request for an expedited briefing
On June 27, I sent Rockstar’s counsel an email, asking it to advise the Court of
the misstatements made in Rockstar’s brief regarding the parties’ meet and confer. Rockstar
refused to do so. A true and correct copy of the parties’ June 27 correspondence is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed June 27, 2014 in Redwood Shores, California.
Andrea Pallios Roberts
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?