Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc

Filing 243

RESPONSE in Opposition re 234 Unopposed MOTION for Hearing on Outstanding Issues Google's Response to Rockstar's Motion to Set Hearing on Outstanding Issues filed by Google Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Perlson, David)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP
AND NETSTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE INC.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-cv-00893-RG
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

GOOGLE’S RESPONSE TO ROCKSTAR’S MOTION TO SET HEARING ON
OUTSTANDING ISSUES
On October 30, 2014, Rockstar filed an “unopposed” motion to set hearing on
outstanding issues. (Dkt. No. 234.) It is correct that Google does not oppose a hearing being set
at a time convenient for the Court and the parties on outstanding issues before the Court, should
the Court find a hearing necessary or useful. However, that is all Google agreed not to oppose.
Google did not agree that a hearing be set “within the “next 2-3 weeks,” as Rockstar’s motion
requests.1
Google opposes this short timeframe because it is simply not practicable given that
briefing on the outstanding issues will likely not even be completed in this timeframe. For the
Court’s convenience, below is a list of the issues currently outstanding and their status:


Rockstar’s Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Dkt. 233).
Rockstar’s motion was filed on October 30. Under the Local Rules, Google’s
response would not be due until November 17. Rockstar asked Google to agree to
an expedited briefing schedule. Google has agreed to respond by November 11,
2014, but the parties have not agreed on the remaining schedule for replies and
sur-replies, which would extend briefing at least into the following week.

1

Google asked Rockstar to withdraw its “unopposed” motion and refile it to properly
reflect what Google agreed not to oppose. Rockstar would not do so.

01980.00010/6309431.2

1



The issues covered in the expedited motions to compel the parties filed on
October 24, 2014. (Dkt. Nos. 222, 228). Under the Local Rules, the parties’
responses would be due on November 10. The parties agreed responsive briefs
will be filed on November 5, and it is Google’s understanding that the parties
intend to separately file a proposed expedited briefing schedule. The parties
explicitly agreed, however, to defer discussions on whether replies and sur-replies
will be filed and if so, by when. Thus, there may be further briefing on this issue
after November 5.



Google’s Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions (Dkt. No. 220).
Google’s motion was filed on October 24. Under the Local Rules, Rockstar’s
responsive brief would be due on November 10. The parties have tentatively
agreed on an expedited briefing schedule, under which briefing would be
completed by November 14, and it is Google’s understanding that the parties
intend to separately file a proposed expedited briefing schedule. That said,
Rockstar’s agreement was subject to the caveat that it may ask for additional time
depending upon when the Court sets a hearing.



Protocol for searching Google senior executive non-email custodial ESI. (Dkt.
Nos. 202-203.) The Court addressed this issue at the October 9 and 10 hearing
and asked the parties to file their proposed protocols for searching the non-email
custodial ESI of the five executives identified in Rockstar’s motion to compel
(Dkt. 126.) The parties did so on October 15.



Whether Nortel waived privilege and work product protection by disclosing
Nortel laptops to Rockstar. The Court addressed this issue at the October 9
hearing and asked the parties and Nortel to file supplemental briefs on this issue.
Nortel and Rockstar filed their supplemental briefs on October 20. (Dkt. Nos.
210, 211.) Google filed its supplemental brief on October 30. (Dkt. Nos. 235,
240.) Rockstar omits this issue in its request for a hearing.

In sum, Google does not object to a hearing being set on outstanding issues after they are
all fully briefed, if the Court believes that a hearing is necessary. Google does object to a
hearing on an issue being set before these issues are fully briefed.
DATED: October 31, 2014

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
By

/s/ David A. Perlson
J. Mark Mann
State Bar No. 12926150
G. Blake Thompson
State Bar No. 24042033
MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON
300 West Main Street

01980.00010/6309431.2

2

Henderson, Texas 75652
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven
[e-mail]
David A. Perlson
[e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4788
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Google Inc.

01980.00010/6309431.2

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s
ECF system.
/s/ Andrea Pallios Roberts
Andrea Pallios Roberts

01980.00010/6309431.2

4