Rosetta Stone LTD v. Google Inc.
Filing
224
TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on April 23, 2010, before Judge Theresa C. Buchanan. Court Reporter/Transcriber Renecia Wilson, Telephone number,703 501-1580. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 6/11/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/12/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/10/2010.(wilson, renecia)
1
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ROSETTA STONE, LTD,
Plaintiff,
VS.
GOOGLE, INC.,
Defendant.
Civil No. 09-736
April 23, 2010
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
MOTIONS HEARING
BEFORE:
THE HONORABLE THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
BY: JENNIFER SPAZIANO, ESQ.
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
ODIN FELDMAN & PITTLEMAN PC
BY: STEPHEN COBB, ESQ.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER
BY: JONATHAN OBLAK, ESQ.
---
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER: RENECIA A. SMITH-WILSON,RMR,CRR
U.S. District Court
401 Courthouse Square, 5th Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
RENECIA A. SMITH-WILSON, RMR, CRR
2
1
2
3
4
(Thereupon, the following was heard in open
court at 10:02 a.m.)
THE CLERK:
Rosetta Stone versus Google,
civil action 09CV736.
5
THE COURT:
6
MS. SPAZIANO:
7
8
9
10
11
Good morning.
Good morning, Your Honor.
Jen Spaziano, Skadden Arps on behalf of Rosetta Stone.
My local counsel is upstairs in Judge Lee's
courtroom because we've got parallel arguments going on.
THE COURT:
That's all right.
We can
proceed without him.
12
MS. SPAZIANO:
13
MR. COBB:
Thank you.
Good morning, Your Honor.
14
Stephen Cobb, Odin Feldman.
15
Jonathan Oblak has been
admitted pro hac vice.
16
MR. OBLAK:
Good morning.
17
THE COURT:
All right.
18
19
Did you have
anything to add to your motions for sanctions?
MS. SPAZIANO:
I do, Your Honor.
Yesterday
20
we received additional documents from Google.
21
have indicated in their responsive papers, and I've
22
actually got them with me and can bring them out and just
23
want to highlight the importance of these documents to the
24
issues that we're dealing with in this case.
25
And as they
Google says in its opposition papers that
RENECIA A. SMITH-WILSON, RMR, CRR
3
1
they're less than 20 documents.
2
thousand pages, and they are -- I'm going to be very
3
general in describing the documents because they've been
4
marked attorney's eyes only and confidential subject to
5
the protective order in this case.
6
7
But they're very important documents
underlying the conclusions --
8
9
10
They're in excess of a
THE COURT:
Ms. Spaziano, I'm having trouble
understanding why these documents are so earth shattering
when you have the survey results.
11
MS. SPAZIANO:
Okay.
The reason that
12
they're important is -- is because number one, they
13
support the conclusions that we have advanced in our
14
summary judgment papers.
15
we basically said undisputed facts number 20.
16
undisputed fact 20 reads what it reads, and we've asked
17
for that finding as a sanction for this.
In our summary judgment papers
18
THE COURT:
19
MS. SPAZIANO:
And
Right.
In response to that
20
undisputed fact, Google went back to its client and said
21
we need some documents in order to refute this undisputed
22
fact, and they advanced these documents in response to
23
that --
24
THE COURT:
Right.
25
MS. SPAZIANO:
-- three pages of it.
RENECIA A. SMITH-WILSON, RMR, CRR
4
1
THE COURT:
Right.
2
MS. SPAZIANO:
And so we -- basically we
3
think those documents actually support the position that
4
we're advancing, but it's certainly not appropriate for
5
Google to rely on those documents in opposing our motion
6
for summary judgment.
7
Google to then provide to us 126 pages of documents
8
relating to those same conclusions.
9
the -- they're basically the surveys that underlie the
10
It certainly isn't appropriate for
They're basically
conclusions.
11
THE COURT:
Uh-huh, right.
12
MS. SPAZIANO:
And if you look through the
13
surveys, you'll get a real good feel for how the testing
14
was done.
15
THE COURT:
Right.
16
MS. SPAZIANO:
And it allows us to explain
17
why it is that those conclusions support our burden of
18
proof here.
19
THE COURT:
So you though have, I assume,
20
included those documents that have now been disclosed to
21
you in any supplemental brief that you file with regard to
22
motion for summary judgment?
23
24
25
MS. SPAZIANO:
We did not, Your Honor.
We
did not get them until the day the reply briefs were due.
THE COURT:
And when do you have the hearing
RENECIA A. SMITH-WILSON, RMR, CRR
5
1
on that?
2
3
MS. SPAZIANO:
before Judge Lee.
4
5
This morning, 10 o'clock
THE COURT:
All right.
But you've told
Judge Lee that you have these now, have you not?
6
MS. SPAZIANO:
We -- no, we've told them
7
through this motion which is one of the reasons that we
8
highlighted in our notice in our cover letter that this
9
motion pertains to the matter that's scheduled for hearing
10
before him.
11
THE COURT:
Uh-huh.
12
MS. SPAZIANO:
Obviously, it's a little bit
13
complicated because of the scheduling.
14
THE COURT:
15
MS. SPAZIANO:
Uh-huh.
But basically, you know, the
16
issue is that these documents came up in the context of
17
summary judgment briefing.
18
summary judgment motion.
19
THE COURT:
20
MS. SPAZIANO:
They used them to oppose our
Right.
And then when we raised our
21
motion for sanctions, they go back to try to figure out
22
how this happened and say, oh, there was a mistake in our
23
vendor.
We have a thousand more pages of documents.
24
THE COURT:
Right.
25
MS. SPAZIANO:
Those documents actually
RENECIA A. SMITH-WILSON, RMR, CRR
6
1
include other documents that we think are very important
2
to us, a couple of them dealing with other issues, the
3
2009 policy change and some of the things that Google did
4
before it implemented the 2009 policy change.
5
And what's prejudicial to Rosetta Stone is
6
we haven't had an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses
7
on it.
8
to you but would be uncomfortable doing so in an open
9
court in light of the confidentiality issues.
And again I have the documents and I can show them
But I can
10
look at them and say, boy, I would have liked to have
11
asked Dan Dulitz, the 30(b)(6) witness about this or Baris
12
Gultekin, the 30(b)(6) witness on another topic about
13
this.
But we didn't have that opportunity.
14
So now we have these documents and no
15
opportunity to effectively conduct discovery with them, no
16
opportunity to use them in connection with summary
17
judgment and that's where we are.
18
19
I mean there's no question that's not
disputed.
They've acknowledged the error.
20
THE COURT:
Right.
21
MS. SPAZIANO:
And on the error, I mean, we
22
look at their papers and there's still all sorts of
23
questions about the production here.
24
sanctions, we identified an e-mail that we received dated
25
May of 2008 that refers to a particular study.
In our motion for
RENECIA A. SMITH-WILSON, RMR, CRR
And that
7
1
e-mail has a link where the final report on that study is
2
supposed to appear.
3
can be found at www.Googlesites.com and then the following
4
link.
5
The e-mail basically says the study
We don't have that study.
And if you read
6
the Brewer declaration that was submitted in support of
7
the motion -- the opposition to the motion for sanctions,
8
it doesn't address that anywhere.
9
And if you read the Brewer declaration --
10
I'm not sure if Kris Brewer is a he or a she, but
11
basically Brewer says when we got the Court's ruling on
12
the motion to compel, we went back and we looked for
13
basically three categories of documents.
14
But your order was much boarder than that.
15
So, they didn't even go back and look for more documents.
16
We raised issues in correspondence that said well what
17
about these documents referenced in this index to Chrisant
18
Fullery's (phonetic) deposition and that index is in the
19
papers and again, I'm not going to say what they'd asked
20
for.
21
But, there were certain very specific
22
experiments identified there, and we've asked for
23
documents about that.
24
went back and we checked the links and the links are
25
basically dead and we couldn't find any documents.
And in response, they say, well we
RENECIA A. SMITH-WILSON, RMR, CRR
8
1
2
Well, how could it be that there were no
documents anywhere regarding these particular experiments?
3
We've got the testimony of their 30(b)(6)
4
witness on studies, and I believe the testimony has all
5
been marked attorney's eyes only.
6
confirms that all such documents should have been
7
maintained.
8
he basically says how you would find them if you wanted to
9
find them.
10
But basically, he
He says where they should be at Google, and
And the Brewer declaration doesn't suggest
that Google did any of that to give us these documents.
11
So we find ourselves in a position of, one,
12
knowing we didn't get I guess it's 1,126 pages of
13
documents that Google concedes were responsive to the
14
request and should have been produced under this Court's
15
order.
16
And we have reason to believe that there are
17
other documents out there that we don't have.
18
a trial date coming up of May 3rd.
19
And we have
So, in light of all of that we think that
20
the request that we're seeking, the relief that we're
21
seeking really is appropriate to address the prejudice to
22
Rosetta Stone.
23
We're basically saying give us as a factual
24
finding what we say is undisputed.
And I'm a little bit
25
surprised by Google's reaction to that because what we're
RENECIA A. SMITH-WILSON, RMR, CRR
9
1
asking the Court to find is basically what their document
2
state.
3
exhibits, I think, four, five, six, and seven and they
4
basically say what our factual finding said, we had
5
documents to support it.
6
Those documents are attached to my declaration as
So the only argument Google has in response
7
to that is, well, the surveys or the studies or whatever
8
was done don't really support that.
9
is, look, we didn't have the survey of those studies.
But what we're saying
So,
10
you can't just that to refute that fact.
11
factual finding, hardly addressed at sanction when their
12
documents say exactly that.
13
So give us that
We're asking for them to certify that they
14
have complied with your order in all respects and
15
basically say what they've done to comply with it.
16
I think Kris Brewer's declaration tries to
17
do that.
18
to your order, it falls far short of undertaking efforts
19
to identify the documents responsive.
20
looking for the costs associated with bringing this motion
21
and basically dealing with this issue.
22
23
24
25
But when you look at what Google did in response
And then we're
And given the May 3rd trial date we think
that's totally appropriate under these circumstances.
THE COURT:
All right, thank you.
You know,
I reviewed this and I reviewed the documents that were
RENECIA A. SMITH-WILSON, RMR, CRR
10
1
submitted to me and all of the representations, the
2
affidavits.
3
results, the report on the surveys.
4
completely that you think that the actual surveys
5
themselves don't support their position, that they support
6
your position instead.
7
any problem having your experts testify as to that at
8
trial.
9
this issue with Judge Lee now in terms of the motion for
10
And Rosetta Stone as I said had the survey
And I understand
But I'm sure that you won't have
I'm sure that your co-counsel upstairs is raising
summary judgment.
11
I'm actually satisfied that their production
12
is complete, that they've done what was required in terms
13
of their search and their production.
14
the failure to produce these documents was inadvertent.
15
don't believe that it was intentional.
16
And I think that
I
And, although it was late, obviously, I
17
don't think that the kind of sanctions that you're seeking
18
here are called for.
19
anything else that can be done at this point.
20
I don't think that really there's
The documents have been produced, and I
21
don't think that sanctions in this instance are
22
appropriate.
23
Sometimes production is not perfect.
And we
24
try to take care of ones where they are really negligent,
25
really purposefully deceitful.
I don't think that that
RENECIA A. SMITH-WILSON, RMR, CRR
11
1
was this case, and I don't think that there's any real
2
prejudice here to Rosetta Stone.
3
So the motion for sanctions is denied.
4
motion to seal is going to be granted.
5
Thank you.
6
MR. COBB:
7
(Proceeding concluded at 10:12 a.m.)
Thank you, Your Honor.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENECIA A. SMITH-WILSON, RMR, CRR
The
12
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTION
3
4
I, Renecia Wilson, hereby certify that the
5
foregoing is a true and accurate transcript that was typed
6
by me from the recording provided by the court.
7
errors or omissions are due to the inability of the
8
undersigned to hear or understand said recording.
Any
9
Further, that I am neither counsel for,
10
related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the
11
above-styled action, and that I am not financially or
12
otherwise interested in the outcome of the above-styled
13
action.
14
15
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto subscribed
my name this 12th day of May , 2010.
16
17
18
/s/
Renecia Wilson, RMR, CRR
Official Court Reporter
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RENECIA A. SMITH-WILSON, RMR, CRR
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?