Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc

Filing 103

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)

EXHIBIT A

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Amanda Bonn [[e-mail]]
Friday, June 27, 2014 1:35 PM
Andrea P Roberts; Justin A. Nelson; Alexander L. Kaplan; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; John Lahad; Shawn Blackburn; [e-mail]; Max L. Tribble; Kristin
Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan
QE-Google-Rockstar; Mark Mann; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
RE: Rockstar v. Google

Andrea,
To be clear, Plaintiffs do not believe the statements you cited warrant correction or need to be brought to the attention
of the Court. If Google nevertheless intends to raise this issue in its briefs, we ask that Google submit our below email as
an exhibit. If Google raises this issue in its briefs, we intend to respond to it in our reply briefs accordingly.
Regards,
Amanda
From: Amanda Bonn
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:28 PM
To: 'Andrea P Roberts'; Justin A. Nelson; Alexander L. Kaplan; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; John
Lahad; Shawn Blackburn; [e-mail]; Max L. Tribble; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan
Cc: QE-Google-Rockstar; Mark Mann; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Rockstar v. Google

Andrea,
Google indeed has repeatedly taken the position that we are only entitled to a single reply brief on both motions. Please
see your initial email to us regarding this issue, attached to the Bonn Declaration as Exhibit 1, and the proposal Google
made in its Motion for Expedited Briefing, both of which contemplate a single reply brief.
In addition, my recollection of the meet-and-confer is that Mr. Perlson indicated Google may be willing to consider
additional briefing, but only if Plaintiffs would agree to an expedited briefing schedule on both motions. Moreover, such
consideration was also apparently conditioned on Plaintiffs acceding to a violation of Local Rule CV-7(a), as there was
never any suggestion by Google that it would agree to file its motion to stay as a separate pleading. That is exactly what
is reflected in my declarations and in the footnote to our briefs. It is also consistent with Google’s actual Motion for
Expedited Briefing.
The statement you complain if in our brief is that Google “insisted that Plaintiffs were not entitled to invoke the rules
regarding Responses and Sur-Replies to motions, but instead would be limited to filing a single, five-page ‘Reply’ brief . .
. to both its own Motion for Leave and to Google’s Cross-Motion to Stay.” (Dkt. No. 100, at 5.) I stand by this
statement. That is exactly what Google insisted on before, during and after the meet-and-confer. Google’s suggestion
during the meet-and-confer that it might consider additional briefing came with strings attached, which is exactly the
point of the footnote in our briefs.
We do not believe any statements we made warrant correction—indeed, they are consistent with Google’s email, my
recollection, and Google’s later Motion to Expedite. If you wish to raise this issue with the Court, please include this
email. If not, we intend bring this to the Court’s attention in our next briefs.
Regards,
Amanda
1

Amanda Bonn | Susman Godfrey LLP
1901 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 950 | Los Angeles, CA 90067
(T) 310-789-3131 | (M) 408-832-5193 [e-mail]

From: Andrea P Roberts [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:20 AM
To: Amanda Bonn; Justin A. Nelson; Alexander L. Kaplan; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; John Lahad;
Shawn Blackburn; [e-mail]; Max L. Tribble; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan
Cc: QE-Google-Rockstar; Mark Mann; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Rockstar v. Google

Amanda,
I write regarding Rockstar’s Motion to Strike Under Local Rule CV-7(a) Google’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 (Dkt. No. 100), and
Rockstar’s Opposition to Google’s Motion to Expedite (Dkt. No. 101). In both briefs, Rockstar contends that
Google “insisted that Plaintiffs were not entitled to invoke the rules regarding Responses and Sur-Replies to
motions, but instead would be limited to filing a single, five-page ‘Reply’ brief . . . to both its own Motion for
Leave and to Google’s Cross-Motion to Stay.” (Dkt. No. 100, at 5.) This argument appears throughout
Rockstar’s briefs. This misstates what occurred in the parties’ meet and confer. As Rockstar admits in footnote
2 of its Motion to Strike and footnote 1 of its Opposition to Google’s Motion to Expedite, Google said it was
willing to stipulate to Rockstar having additional pages for its brief. Moreover, Google also said it was willing
to discuss additional briefing if Rockstar’s concern was that it would not have a sur-reply.
This is the second time now that Rockstar’s counsel has misstated what occurred on a meet and confer in a
brief. (See 6/3/14 Email from A. Roberts). We believe that Rockstar should advise the Court of this
misstatement and do so today. Google plans to file its opposition to Rockstar’s Motion to Strike, and reply in
support of Google’s Motion to Expedite today. Please confirm by 3 pm Central Time that Rockstar will advise
the Court of and correct its counsel’s misstatement today.
Thanks,
Andrea
Andrea Pallios Roberts
Of Counsel,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
650-801-5023 Direct
650.801.5000 Main Office Number
650.801.5100 FAX
[e-mail]
www.quinnemanuel.com
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any

2

review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.

3