Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc

Filing 126

MOTION to Compel by Rockstar Consortium US LP. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix of Exhibits ISO Motion to Compel, # 2 Affidavit of Amanda Bonn ISO Motion to Compel, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit 18, # 21 Exhibit 19, # 22 Exhibit 20, # 23 Exhibit 21, # 24 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion to Compel)(Bonn, Amanda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP
AND NETSTAR TECHNOLOGIES
LLC,
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-893

Plaintiff,
v.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

DECLARATION OF AMANDA K. BONN IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM GOOGLE INC.

I, Amanda K. Bonn, declare as follows:
1.

I am a member in good standing of the California State Bar.

2.

I am an attorney at the law firm of Susman Godfrey L.L.P., and I am counsel of

record for Plaintiffs Rockstar Consortium US LP and NetStar Technologies LLC (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) in this action. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Discovery from Google Inc.
3.

The parties’ meet-and-confer efforts concerning Plaintiffs’ document requests

included an in-person meeting of lead and lead local counsel for both parties on July 10, 2014
that lasted several hours. In addition, the parties prepared for the in-person meet-and-confer with
multi-hour telephone calls on July 8, 2014, and July 9, 2014. The parties also followed up on the
in-person meet-and-confer with a further telephone call on August 1, 2014. In addition to the

3289237v1/013149

1

above telephonic and in-person meet-and-confer efforts, the parties further exchanged
voluminous correspondence as reflected in the exhibits below.
4.

During a telephonic meet-and-confer over Plaintiffs’ document requests, counsel

for Google Inc. indicated they did not believe “Quality Score” was implicated by Plaintiffs’
Preliminary Infringement Contentions because a word search of the PDFs failed to indicate the
words “Quality Score” appeared in the document. Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Infringement
Contentions indeed show “Quality Score” is accused; however, due to the fact that screen
captures from Google’s websites are used in the charts, a word search would not be expected to
result in hits for that term.
5.

During the parties’ meet-and-confer efforts, Google Inc. objected to producing

information from Google’s dashboards because it would be unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs
requested that Google Inc. provide further information regarding its dashboards so that they
could refine their requests and avoid unduly burdening Google Inc. Instead, Google Inc. refused
to provide such information other than via an interrogatory response, which further delayed the
meet-and-confer process.
6.

In jointly moving the Court for entry of an e-discovery Order, Google Inc. took

the position that it need only conduct a general search of central repositories for responsive ESI
and that custodial documents (whether ESI or e-mail) should be subject to limits on the number
of custodians and search terms. Plaintiffs, by contrast, argued that the Model Order only imposed
custodial and search term limits for e-mail and not for other forms of ESI. The Court adopted an
e-discovery Order largely tracking Plaintiffs’ proposal, ordering limits for custodians and search
terms only as to e-mail and not to other forms of custodial ESI.

3289237v1/013149

2

7.

Google Inc. has taken the position that senior executives including Larry Page,

Salar Kamangar, Susan Wojcicki, Sridhar Ramaswamy, and Nikesh Arora are unlikely to have
“relevant, non-duplicative emails” as compared to more junior Google Inc. employees. Similarly,
Google has not included any members of its Executive Management Group in its disclosure of
significant e-mail custodians and has taken the position that such custodians need not be
searched for non-email ESI.
8.

Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a letter from counsel for

Plaintiffs to counsel for Google Inc. requesting the production of documents, dated April 30,
2014.
9.

Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a letter from counsel for

Google Inc. to counsel for Plaintiffs responding to Plaintiffs’ document requests, dated June 18,
2014.
10.

Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a letter from counsel for

Plaintiffs to counsel for Google Inc. regarding Plaintiffs’ document requests and Google Inc.’s
objections thereto, dated July 1, 2014.
11.

Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of an email from counsel for

Plaintiffs to counsel for Google Inc. regarding the parties’ meet-and-confer efforts, dated July 9,
2014.
12.

Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of an email from counsel for

Plaintiffs to counsel for Google Inc. regarding the parties’ meet-and-confer efforts, dated July 10,
2014.

3289237v1/013149

3

13.

Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of is a true and correct copy of is

a true and correct copy of a letter from counsel for Google Inc. to counsel for Plaintiffs regarding
the parties’ meet-and-confer efforts, dated July 16, 2014.
14.

Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of an email from counsel for

Plaintiffs to counsel for Google Inc. regarding the parties’ meet-and-confer efforts, dated July 25,
2014.
15.

Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of a letter from counsel for

Google Inc. to counsel for Plaintiffs regarding the parties’ meet-and-confer efforts, dated July 29,
2014.
16.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of a letter from counsel for

Google Inc. to counsel for Plaintiffs dated August 6, 2014.
17.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Preliminary

Infringement Contentions, dated March 24, 2014.
18.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of Exhibit B to Plaintiffs’

Preliminary Infringement Contentions charting U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 against the Accused
Instrumentalities.
19.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of Exhibit C to Plaintiffs’

Preliminary Infringement Contentions charting U.S. Patent No. 7,469,245 against the Accused
Instrumentalities.
20.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of Exhibit D to Plaintiffs’

Preliminary Infringement Contentions charting U.S. Patent No. 7,672,970 against the Accused
Instrumentalities.

3289237v1/013149

4

21.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of Exhibit E to Plaintiffs’

Preliminary Infringement Contentions charting U.S. Patent No. 7,895,178 against the Accused
Instrumentalities.
22.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of Exhibit F to Plaintiffs’

Preliminary Infringement Contentions charting U.S. Patent No. 7,895,183 against the Accused
Instrumentalities.
23.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of Exhibit G to Plaintiffs’

Preliminary Infringement Contentions charting U.S. Patent No. 7,933,883 against the Accused
Instrumentalities.
24.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of certain demonstrative

exhibits from the trial in I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc., et al., No. 11-cv-512 (E.D. Va.).
25.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 18 is a true and correct copy of a Reuters.com article

titled “Google, Samsung, Huawei sued over Nortel patents,” dated October 31, 2013, and
accessed online on August 18, 2014, at http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USBRE99
U1EN20131031.
26.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of a print-out from

Google Inc.’s website regarding the company’s founding, accessed online on August 18, 2014, at
https://www.google.com/about/company.
27.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 20 is a true and correct copy of a print-out from

Google Inc.’s website regarding AdSense for content, accessed online on August 18, 2014, at
https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/17470?hl=en.
28.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 21 is a true and correct copy of an email from counsel

for Google Inc. to counsel for Plaintiffs dated August 18, 2014.

3289237v1/013149

5

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Signed this 18th day of August 18, 2014, at Los Angeles, California
/s/ Amanda K. Bonn
Amanda K. Bonn

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that all counsel of record, who are deemed to have consented to
electronic service are being served this 18th day of August, 2014 with a copy of this document
and Exhibits 1-21 hereto via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CD-5(a)(3).

/s/ Amanda K. Bonn
Amanda K. Bonn

3289237v1/013149

6