Google v. Pacific Webworks

Filing 56

REPORT OF ATTORNEY PLANNING MEETING. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Scheduling Order)(Bialecki, Scott)

Download PDF
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP Scott R. Bialecki (Pro Hac Vice) Roger R. Myers (Pro Hac Vice) George M. Haley, #1302 Blaine J. Benard, #5661 Craig Buschmann, #10696 299 South Main Street, Suite 1800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2263 Telephone: (801) 521-5800 Facsimile: (801) 521-9639 Attorneys for Plaintiff GOOGLE INC. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. BLOOSKY INTERACTIVE, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, and DOES 2-50, Defendant. 1. PRELIMINARY MATTERS: a. The nature of the claims and affirmative defenses is: ATTORNEYS' PLANNING MEETING REPORT Case No. 09-cv-1068-BSJ District Judge Bruce S. Jenkins Plaintiff: In its Complaint, Plaintiff Google Inc. ("Google") has asserted willful trademark infringement of federally registered trademarks and service marks, federal unfair competition, false designation of origin and federal dilution by tarnishment in violation of the Lanham Act; violation of Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (Cyberpiracy); violations of the Utah Unfair Competition Act and Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act; and trademark dilution, trademark infringement and unfair competition under Utah state law based on Bloosky's alleged infringing use of Google's trademarks. #1480661 v5 den Google reserves its right to amend its Complaint to add additional parties and/or claim as additional information becomes available to Google. Defendant: At this time Bloosky Interactive, LLC ("Bloosky") has not filed a responsive pleading to Google's Amended Complaint. Bloosky is continuing its investigation of claims currently asserted. Accordingly, Bloosky reserves its right to assert any available claims and/or defenses. b. This case is _x not referred to a magistrate judge ___referred to magistrate judge _______________________ ___under 636(b)(1)(A) ___under 636(b)(1)(B) ___assigned to a magistrate judge under General Order 07-001 and ___all parties consent to the assignment for all proceedings or ___one or more parties request reassignment to a district judge c. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), a meeting was held on June 29, 2010 by telephone. The following were in attendance: Scott Bialecki of Holme Roberts & Owen LLP, counsel for Plaintiff Google Inc, Greg Christiansen of Christiansen & Jackson, P.C., counsel for Defendant Bloosky Interactive, LLC. d. e. f. The parties _____ request / __x___ do not request an initial pretrial scheduling conference with the court prior to entry of the scheduling order. The parties _____ have exchanged or __x___ will exchange by July 2, 2010 the initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(D), the parties agree to receive all items required to be served under Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(a) by either (i) notice of electronic filing, or (ii) e-mail transmission. Such electronic service will constitute service 2 #1480661 v5 den and notice of entry as required by those rules. Any right to service by USPS mail is waived. 2. DISCOVERY PLAN: The parties jointly propose to the court the following discovery plan: Use separate paragraphs or subparagraphs as necessary if the parties disagree. Plaintiff's Complaint has fifty John Does. At this time Bloosky has not filed a responsive pleading to Google's Amended Complaint. Bloosky is continuing its investigation of claims currently asserted. Accordingly, Bloosky reserves its right to assert any available claims and/or defenses. The Parties reserve the right to amend this discovery plan as further information becomes available and/or other parties are identified. a. Discovery is necessary on the following subjects: The parties anticipate discovery relating to the alleged use of Google's trademarks by Bloosky and others and damages (i.e., all issues raised in the Complaint). The Parties also anticipate discovery relating to Google's claims, Bloosky's answer and defenses to Google's claims, and any potential claims asserted by Bloosky. b. Discovery Phases. Specify whether discovery will (i) be conducted in phases, or (ii) be limited to or focused upon particular issues. If (ii), specify those issues and whether discovery will be accelerated with regard to any of them and the date(s) on which such early discovery will be completed. Discovery will not be conducted in phases nor will particular issues be focused upon. c. Designate the discovery methods to be used and the limitations to be imposed. (1) For oral exam depositions, (i) specify the maximum number for the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s), and (ii) indicate the maximum number of hours unless extended by agreement of the parties. Oral Exam Depositions Plaintiff(s) __20___ Defendant(s) _20___ 3 #1480661 v5 den The Parties reserve the right to amend this deposition limitation as further information becomes available and/or other parties are identified. Maximum no. hrs. per deposition: 7 hrs except for Rule 30(b)(6), which will be 7 hrs per designee (2) For interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production of documents, specify the maximum number that will be served on any party by any other party. Interrogatories _40___ Admissions __No limit___ Requests for production of documents _50____ (3) Other discovery methods: Specify any other methods that will be used and any limitations to which all parties agree. In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiff may issue additional third party subpoenas. Defendant Bloosky may also issue additional third-party subpoenas. d. Discovery of electronically stored information should be handled as follows: Brief description of parties' agreement. Plaintiff: TIFF files with load files for Concordance. Defendant: Bloosky may be unable to provide electronically stored information (ESI) in TIFF format for Concordance. Defendant will confer further with Plaintiff toward a stipulation for production of ESI to be filed within 30 days of the filing of this report. e. The parties have agreed to an order regarding claims of privilege or protection as trial preparation material asserted after production, as follows: Brief description of provisions of proposed order. A two tiered Protective Order was entered on May 28, 2010 between Google and Defendant Pacific Webworks. Bloosky reserves the right to seek to modify the existing Protective Order or move for a new protective order, if necessary. 4 #1480661 v5 den 3. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS AND ADDITION OF PARTIES: Plaintiff has named 50 John Does in this action. Bloosky states it may assert potential cross-claims and/or counter-claims against Google and/or other third parties. The Parties agree to the following schedule as it pertains to the current parties. a. b. The cutoff dates for filing a motion to amend pleadings are: Plaintiff(s) 9/30/2010 Defendant(s) 9/30/2010 The cutoff dates for filing a motion to join additional parties are: Plaintiff(s) 9/30/2010 Defendants(s) 9/30/2010 (NOTE: Establishing cutoff dates for filing motions does not relieve counsel from the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)). 4. EXPERT REPORTS: a, Reports from experts under Rule 26(a)(2) will be submitted on: Plaintiff(s) 3/1/11 Defendant(s) 3/1/11 Counter reports 4/1/11 5. OTHER DEADLINES: a. b. c. Discovery cutoff: Fact 2/1/11 Expert 4/22/11 (optional) Final date for supplementation of disclosures under Rule 26 (a)(3) and of discovery under Rule 26 (e) ___/___/___ Deadline for filing dispositive or potentially dispositive motions and Daubert motions is 5/31/11. 6. ADR/SETTLEMENT: Use separate paragraphs/subparagraphs as necessary if the parties disagree. a. b. c. The potential for resolution before trial is: ___ good _x__ fair ____ poor This case should be referred to the court's alternative dispute resolution program for arbitration: _____ mediation: __x___ The case should be re-evaluated for settlement/ADR resolution on: 12/1/10 5 #1480661 v5 den 7. TRIAL AND PREPARATION FOR TRIAL: a. The parties should have _____ days after service of final lists of witnesses and exhibits to list objections under Rule 26(a)(3) (if different than 14 days provided by Rule). b. c. This case should be ready for trial by: 9/1/11 Specify type of trial: Jury The estimated length of the trial is: 5 full trial days Date: 06/29/10 Date: 06/29/10 /s/ Scott R. Bialecki Signature and typed name of Plaintiff(s) Attorney /s/ Greg Christiansen Signature and typed name of Defendant(s) Attorney Respectfully submitted this 29th day of June 2010 By: /s/ Scott R. Bialecki HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP Scott R. Bialecki (Pro Hac Vice) Roger R. Myers (Pro Hac Vice) George M. Haley, #1302 Blaine J. Benard, #5661 Craig Buschmann, #10696 Attorneys for Plaintiff Google Inc. By: /s/Greg Christiansen CHRISTIANSEN & JACKSON, P.C. Greg Christiansen, #10755 Attorneys for Defendant Bloosky Interactive, LLC 6 #1480661 v5 den CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 29th day of June, 2010, I caused a true and correct copy of the ATTORNEYS' PLANNING MEETING REPORT to be served as follows: Blair R. Jackson, Esq. Greg Christiansen, Esq. Christiansen & Jackson, P.C. 10421 S. Jordan Gateway, Suite 600 South Jordan, UT 84095 _____ U.S. Mail, postage prepaid _____ Hand Delivery _____ Facsimile _____ Overnight courier X E-Mail and/or CM/ECF By: /s/ Paul S. Cha 7 #1480661 v5 den

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?