Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 815

Opposed MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to its PR 3-1 Infringement Contentions with Respect to Google Music and Google+ by Eolas Technologies Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Text of Proposed Order Order)(McKool, Mike)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 11 Page 1 of 3 From: Stroy, Brandon [Brandon.Stroy@ropesgray.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 9:39 PM To: Christopher J. Mierzejewski; Ropes Google Group Cc: allengardner@potterminton.com; Eolas; mikejones@potterminton.com Subject: RE: Eolas v. Adobe - Google & YouTube - Discovery deadline and request for plan for completing discovery by deadline Christopher,   With respect to the list of outstanding issues you raised in your email from Wednesday  regarding outstanding, we can provide the following updates in advance of next week’s meet &  confer:   1) On the depositions of individuals identified in Google’s Initial Disclosures, we are  working to narrow our witness list, and expect to be able to provide Eolas with a non‐ final list of expected witnesses shortly.  Generally, we expect that this list will include  primarily individuals who have already been deposed, or third party witnesses who are  likely to be common to several of the defendants.  In the latter case, we expect Eolas  will arrange with the appropriate representative for each prospective third party  witness an appropriate plan for their depositions.  To the extent we identify trial  witnesses that Eolas has not had an opportunity to depose, Google will accommodate  Eolas taking such depositions.  2) Your email states, incorrectly, that well over half of Eolas’ 30(b)(6) deposition topics  have yet to be covered in depositions of Google 30(b)(6) witnesses.  Instead, while a  number of Eolas’ 100+ 30(b)(6) deposition topics remain outstanding, the most  important topics, as identified by Eolas, have been covered or scheduled.  Google has no  intention of refusing to allow 30(b)(6) depositions to occur.  However, the fact of the  matter is that taking depositions for all of the remaining topics simply may not be  possible for Eolas given the limits that exist on its overall number of available deposition  hours.  Please don’t mistake Eolas’ meeting or exceeding that limitation with Google, or  any other defendant, refusing to allow 30(b)(6) depositions to occur.  Indeed, by  Google’s count, Eolas has already exceeded its total allotment of depositions hours to  be taken among all defendants.  Therefore, barring some relief from the Court, Google  doesn’t see any entitlement to additional depositions beyond those explicitly agreed  upon by the parties.  Google is, nonetheless, willing to be reasonable in attempting to  accommodate Eolas’ requests should there be additional 30(b)(6) topics of particular  interest to Eolas, and to the extent such witnesses are reasonably available at Google.  3) With respect to revenue and usage information, we have returned to Google to collect  additional information, and are in the process of requesting still further information  from Google.  We will provide this information to Eolas once we have obtained the  complete collection and obtained permission from Google.  I can also tell you that, as  expected, we found that much of the requested information is simply not available from  inspection of Google’s regularly collected, reviewable analytics information.  4) Google does oppose Eolas’ motion to add Google Music (and Google+) to its  infringement contentions.  Adding additional infringement contentions this close to trial  8/2/2011 Page 2 of 3 is highly prejudicial, particularly in view of the discovery that has already been taken by both parties that  did not include requests related to these additional products.  Collecting the necessary discovery on  these products between now and trial would simply not be possible for either party.  5) As you will appreciate, although an email may not have passed directly between an attorney and a  client, the email may still contain information that is protected by the attorney‐client privilege.  For  example, an email from one Google employee to another may recite information that the first Google  employee received from a Google attorney.  In this, and in other such cases, we believe it is entirely  appropriate for such communications to be withheld from production on the basis of privilege.   Moreover, Eolas has had Google’s privilege log since December, 2010. These concerns, raised on the  eve of the close of discovery, could have, and should have been raised earlier.  Nonetheless, to the  extent we discover documents that were improperly excluded from production and improperly listed  on the privilege log, we will produce them.     I further would like to identify some issues Google has identified with Eolas’ privilege log.  Specifically,  Eolas has listed documents on its privilege log from 2008 and early 2009 as containing information  described as attorney work product and litigation strategy, although Eolas’ Mr. Stetson testified at his  deposition that had no anticipation of future litigation after the conclusion of the Microsoft case until  summer 2009.  Google requests that this information be reviewed and produced to the extent it does  not contain privileged information.    I trust that this email answers the majority of the questions for which you had requested the meet and confer  for Monday.  Please let me know if you have further questions, or if, in view of the above, you would like to  take any items off of your agenda for our Monday meeting.   Regards, Brandon       Brandon H. Stroy ROPES & GRAY LLP T +1 650 617 4028 | F +1 650 566 4139 1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303 brandon.stroy@ropesgray.com www.ropesgray.com Not admitted in California. Circular 230 Disclosure (R&G): To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding U.S. tax-related penalties or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. This message (including attachments) is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it without further distribution and reply to the sender that you have received the message in error. From: Christopher J. Mierzejewski [mailto:cmierzejewski@McKoolSmith.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 1:49 PM To: Ropes Google Group Cc: allengardner@potterminton.com; Eolas Subject: Eolas v. Adobe - Google & YouTube - Discovery deadline and request for plan for completing discovery by 8/2/2011 Page 3 of 3 deadline Counsel, We are about two weeks away from the discovery deadline of Aug. 12, 2011 (Dkt. No. 270). Yet we are still awaiting discovery from Google and Youtube. If you have a plan, we need to know what the plan is to take care of the remaining discovery. If you don't have a plan, we need to know so we can make sure we quickly formulate a plan. If Google or YouTube is refusing to or is otherwise unable to provide the remainder of this discovery before the discovery deadline, we need to know today so we can decide how to proceed. I am available today for a call if that will be useful in discussing these issues as we work towards some plan for how to finish up this discovery. (1) 30(b)(1) depositions of individuals identified in Google & YouTube's Initial Disclosures. There are around 49 individuals identified in the Initial Disclosures who appear to be employed at Google or YouTube and were noticed on April 13, 2010. We have proposed that we do not have to depose all of them if there are individuals that Google & YouTube will not be using at trial. If even a small fraction of these individuals will be needed, depositions need to be scheduled soon to allow time for all to be deposed. While we agreed to Google & YouTube's request to push their disclosure date for trial witnesses to the same day as discovery close, it is still Google & YouTube's obligation to provide these 30(b)(1) witnesses before the end of discovery. Please identify your plan for deposition of all of these individuals, or proposed plan for deposition of the limited number of individuals you plan on using at trial. (2) 30(b)(6) depositions as noticed on March 23, 2011 and March 15, 2011. Well over half of these depositions have yet to be taken. Google and YouTube have only recently indicated they might refuse to allow some of these depositions and have not yet replied to our requests for clarification on this issue. Please identify your plans for providing deponents on the remainder of these deposition topics. (3) Revenue and Usage numbers. On July 6, 2011 and July 13, 2011 we made specific requests for revenue and usage numbers, asking for specific Bates numbers with this information, production of additional information, or confirmation that Google and YouTube do not have the information readily available. We are still waiting for a response beyond that you will look into it. Please provide the information. (4) Google Music PICs. Google has still not provided a position on supplementing to include the Google Music PICs provided June 24, 2011. Please provide Google's position on a motion to supplement. (5) Privilege Log claims of attorney-client communication when no attorney is a party to the e-mails. We raised this issue July 11, 2011 and have yet to receive any response. Please provide a response. Sincerely, Christopher Christopher J. Mierzejewski | McKool Smith 300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700 | Austin, Texas 78701 telephone: 512.692.8740 NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail is SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT and ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE and is CONFIDENTIAL. It is intended only for the individual or entity designated above. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, use or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the addressee designated above by the sender is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply immediately. Any e-mail erroneously transmitted to you should be immediately destroyed. 8/2/2011

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?