I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 1005

Declaration re 1003 Opposition, (of Joshua L. Sohn) in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Motion to Show Cause and Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15)(Noona, Stephen)

EXHIBIT 15

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

David Perlson
Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:16 PM
Brothers, Kenneth; Margaret P. Kammerud
zz-IPEngine; 'Noona, Stephen E.'; QE-IP Engine
RE: I/P Engine v. AOL, et al.
Redline DSMDB-#3009744-v1-DS_redline_to_QE_12_7_PO-4510845 Agreed PO.PDF;
Redline DSMDB-#3009743-v1-DS_redline_to_QE_12_7_ESI_plan-4510860 Stip.pdf; Redline
DSMDB-#3009731-v1-DS_redline_of_QE_12_7_discovery_plan-4510853 Jt Discovery
Plan.pdf

Follow Up Flag:

Follow up

Ken, I think we are close.    

Please see redlines attached which should hopefully be self explanatory.  If not, we can discuss on our call tomorrow. 

David 

From: Brothers, Kenneth [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 10:24 AM
To: Margaret P. Kammerud
Cc: zz-IPEngine; 'Noona, Stephen E.'; QE-IP Engine
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. AOL, et al.

Meg:
Per our meet and confer yesterday, enclosed are redline markups of the protective order and discovery agreements. I
accepted your edits first. I have highlighted the areas where we have competing proposals. I also have included a couple
of last-ditch compromise proposals that will be withdrawn if not accepted during our meet and confer scheduled for
tomorrow afternoon.
Ken

Confidentiality Statement
This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may
contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this
confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing,
copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. Dickstein Shapiro reserves the right to monitor any communication
that is created, received, or sent on its network. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail
message and permanently delete the original message.
To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to [e-mail]
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
www.dicksteinshapiro.com

From: Margaret P. Kammerud [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 5:22 PM
To: Brothers, Kenneth
Cc: zz-IPEngine; 'Noona, Stephen E.'; QE-IP Engine
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. AOL, et al.

Ken, 

When can we expect Plaintiff’s feedback on the latest drafts of the protective order and discovery agreements? 

Thanks, 
Meg 

From: Margaret P. Kammerud
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 12:53 PM
To: 'Brothers, Kenneth'
Cc: zz-IPEngine; 'Noona, Stephen E.'; QE-IP Engine
Subject: I/P Engine v. AOL, et al.

Ken, 

Attached are the most recent drafts of the protective order, discovery plan, and document production 
agreement.  Our changes are redlined and highlighted in yellow.  Plaintiff’s last edits also remain redlined in the 
document, but are not highlighted except for the two sections in the PO that we may have to raise with the 
Court.  

Our changes are explained below. 

Protective Order 

On page 3, we removed the provision allowing confidential information to be shared with Plaintiff’s Chief 
Operations Officer.  It is unfounded for a company leader who engages in competitive business decisions to have 
access to highly sensitive, confidential business information produced in a litigation. 

On page 5, we put back in the provision granting the producing party the discretion to select the location at 
which source code is produced.  The protective order ensures that the parties will cooperate in good faith in 
determining a location for source code production, but in the end, each party must have the ability to best 
protect its source code. 

On page 10, we fixed a minor nit concerning the number of experts or consultants who may access source code. 
We agree with your proposal to allow four outside experts or consultants access. 

On page 15, we removed the language stating that limits on patent prosecution do not apply to reexaminations. 
This does not add anything to the agreement due to the fact that reexaminations already are not included in the 
prosecution limits. 

On pages 16 and 17 we adjusted the limitations on objecting to experts in order to clarify the reasonableness 
requirements.   

On page 18 you added the phrase “or otherwise provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Federal 
Rules of Evidence.”  Could you please explain why you believe this is necessary?   

Discovery Plan 

On page 6 we have added the phrase “endeavor in good faith to” in regards to providing an initial privilege log 
on or before January  30, 2012.  Although we do not foresee any delay in the preparation and service of the 
initial privilege logs, this allows the parties to deal with any unforeseen delays that arise without 
inconveniencing the Court. 

Document Production Agreement 

On pages 7 and 8 we adjusted the limitations on custodians.  Our proposal allows the receiving party to seek 
production from five custodians from each producing party with the option of seeking production from another 
three custodians in the event the requesting party believes in good faith that such additional custodians are 
necessary.  The receiving party must go to the court to seek discovery from more than eight custodians per 
producing party.   

The cost shifting provision will apply if the receiving party seeks production from more than ten custodians from 
any one producing party.  This change makes the cost‐shifting provision party‐specific.  It also ensures that no 
party will harass another party of unnecessarily seek excessive custodial information. 

On page 9, we reverted to the language previously included in regarding to PDAs, voicemails, and instant 
messages.  We believe that the language you had proposed was both confusing and overbroad. 

Best, 
Meg 

Margaret P. Kammerud
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-875-6316 Direct
415.875.6600 Main Office Number
415.875.6700 FAX
[e-mail]
www.quinnemanuel.com
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
No. 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-FBS
Plaintiff,
v.
AOL, INC., GOOGLE INC., IAC SEARCH &
MEDIA, INC., GANNETT COMPANY,
INC., and TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendants.

[Proposed] Stipulation Regarding the Format of Document Productions
This Stipulation Regarding the Format of Document Productions shall govern the parties in the
above-captioned case (the “Litigation”).
I.

GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. The parties will make reasonable efforts to prepare responsive and nonprivileged data

for production in accordance with the agreed-upon specifications set forth below. These
specifications apply to hard copy documents or electronically stored information (“ESI”)
which are to be produced in the first instance in this litigation.
B. SECURITY Both parties will make reasonable efforts to ensure that any productions

made are free from viruses and provided on encrypted media for submission.
C.

CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATION. Responsive documents in TIFF format

will be stamped with the appropriate confidentiality designations in accordance with the

01980.51928/4493090.14510860.1

-1-

Protective Order in this matter. Each responsive document produced in native format will
have its confidentiality designation identified in the filename of the native file.
D.

NON-STANDARD FILES. The format of production of non-standard electronic

files, large oversized documents, etc. will be discussed before production to determine
the optimal production format.
E. PRODUCTION MEDIA. Documents shall be produced on external hard drives,

readily accessible computer(s) or electronic media (“Production Media”). Each piece of
production media shall identify: (1) the producing party’s name; (2) the production date;
and (3) the Bates Number range of the materials contained on the Production Media.
II.

DATA PROCESSING
A. KEYWORD SEARCHING To the extent that keywords are used in limiting the

universe of potentially responsive documents to be reviewed, the parties shall meet and
confer to try to develop a mutually agreeable list of search terms and protocols prior to
the production of documents.
B. CULLING\FILTERING Each party will use its best efforts to filter out common

system files and application executable files such as by using a commercially reasonable
hash identification process and the hash values located in the National Software
Reference Library (“NSRL”) NIST hash set list.
C. DEDUPLICATION A party is only required to produce a single copy of a

responsive document and a party may de-duplicate responsive ESI across Custodians. A
party may also de-duplicate “near-duplicate” email threads as follows: In an email
thread, only the final-in-time document need be produced, assuming that all previous
emails in the thread are contained within the final message. Where a prior email contains
01980.51928/4493090.14510860.1

-2-

an attachment, that email and attachment shall not be removed as a “near-duplicate.” In
an email thread, the parent/child relationship between communications shall be preserved
and the attachments shall follow the email thread.
III.

PRODUCTION OF HARD COPY DOCUMENTS
A. TIFFs. Documents that exist in hard copy format only shall be scanned and produced

as TIFFs, with at least 300 dots per inch (dpi). Each TIFF image shall be named
according to the corresponding bates number associated with the document. Each image
shall be branded according to the bates number and agreed upon confidentiality
designation. TIFFs shall show all text and images that would be visible to a user of the
hard copy documents.
B. OCR TEXT FILES. A commercially acceptable technology for optical character

recognition “OCR” shall be used for all scanned, hard copy documents. OCR text shall
be provided as a single text file for each document, and the filename itself should match
its respective TIFF filename. The text files will not contain the redacted portions of the
documents.
C. DATABASE LOAD FILES/CROSS-REFERENCE FILES. Documents should be

provided with (a) an ASCII delimited data file (.txt, .dat, or .csv), and (b) an image load
file that can be loaded into commercially acceptable production software (e.g.,
Concordance, Summation).

Each TIFF in a production must be referenced in the

corresponding image load file.

The total number of documents referenced in a

production’s data load file should match the total number of designated document breaks
in the Image Load file(s) in the production.

01980.51928/4493090.14510860.1

-3-

D. CODING FIELDS. The following information shall be produced in the delimited

data file accompanying hard copy documents: (a) BEGBATES, (b) ENDBATES, (c)
CUSTODIAN, (d) CONFIDENTIALITY, and (e) REDACTED.
E. BATES NUMBERING. All images must be assigned a unique Bates number that is

sequential within a given document and across the production sets.
F. UNITIZING OF DOCUMENTS. In scanning paper documents, distinct documents

should not be merged into a single record, and single documents should not be split into
multiple records (i.e., paper documents should be logically unitized). The parties will use
reasonable efforts to unitize documents correctly.
G. IDENTIFICATION OF PAPER DOCUMENTS. The parties will utilize best

efforts to ensure that paper records for a particular Custodian that are included in a single
production are produced in consecutive Bates stamp order. The parties will identify
which documents in a production are scanned paper documents either in the cover letter
accompanying the production or in a coding field titled “Paper (Y/N).”
IV.

PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION
A.

METADATA FIELDS AND PROCESSING. Each of the metadata and coding

fields set forth in Appendix 1 that can be extracted shall be produced for that document.
The parties are not obligated to populate manually any of the fields in Appendix 1 if such
fields cannot be extracted from a document, with the exception of the following: (a)
BEGBATES,

(b)

ENDBATES,

(c)

BEGATTACH,

(d)

ENDATTACH;

(e)

CUSTODIAN, (f) CONFIDENTIALITY, and (g) REDACTED, which should be
populated by the party or the party’s vendor. The parties will make reasonable efforts to
ensure that metadata fields automatically extracted from the documents are correct,
01980.51928/4493090.14510860.1

-4-

however, the parties acknowledge that such metadata may not always be accurate and
might instead contain irrelevant or incorrect information generated during the collection
process. Parties may request other native files be produced as described in Section IV.I.
below.
B. TIFFs. Each TIFF image file should be one page and named according to the unique

bates number, followed by the extension “.TIF”. Original document orientation should
be maintained (i.e., portrait to portrait and landscape to landscape).
C. TEXT FILES. For each document, a text file should be provided along with the

image files and metadata. The text of native files should be extracted directly from the
native file. However, if a document has been redacted or does not contain extractable
text, OCR of the redacted document will suffice in lieu of extracted text.
D. DATABASE

LOAD FILES/CROSS-REFERENCE FILES. (a) an ASCII

delimited data file (.txt, .dat, or .csv), and (b) an image load file that can be loaded into
commercially acceptable production software (e.g., Concordance, Summation).
E. BATES NUMBERING. All images must be assigned a unique Bates number that is

sequential within a given document and across the production sets.
F. PRESENTATIONS.

The parties shall take reasonable efforts to process

presentations (MS PowerPoint, Google Presently/Punch) with hidden slides and
speaker’s notes unhidden, and to show both the slide and the speaker’s notes on the TIFF
image.
G. SPREADSHEETS.

TIFF images of spreadsheets need not be produced unless

redacted, in which instance, spreadsheets will be produced in TIFF with OCR. Native
copies of spreadsheets should be produced with a link in the NativeLink field, along with
01980.51928/4493090.14510860.1

-5-

extracted text and applicable metadata fields set forth in Appendix 1. A TIFF placeholder
indicating the document was provided in native format should accompany the database
record. If a spreadsheet has been redacted, TIFF images and OCR of the redacted
document will suffice in lieu of a native file and extracted text. The parties will make
reasonable efforts to ensure that any spreadsheets that are produced only as TIFF images
are formatted so as to be readable.
H. PROPRIETARY FILES. To the extent a response to discovery requires production

of ESI accessible only through proprietary software, the parties should continue to
preserve each version of such information. The parties shall meet and confer to finalize
the appropriate production format.
I.

REQUEST(S) FOR ADDITIONAL NATIVE FILES. If good cause exists to

request production of specified files, other than those specifically set forth above, in
native format, the party may request such production and provide an explanation of the
need for native file review, which request shall not unreasonably be denied. Any native
files that are produced should be produced with a link in the NativeLink field, along with
all extracted text and applicable metadata fields.
J.

REDACTION OF INFORMATION If documents are produced containing redacted

information, the producing party shall supply a list of the documents for any such
claim(s) of privilege, indicating the grounds for the redaction and the nature of the
redacted material (e.g., privilege, trade secret, privacy).
V.

PROCESSING OF THIRD-PARTY DOCUMENTS
A. A party that issues a non-party subpoena (“Issuing Party”) shall include a copy of this

Stipulation with the subpoena and state that the parties to the litigation have requested
01980.51928/4493090.14510860.1

-6-

that third-parties produce documents in accordance with the specifications set forth
herein.
B. The Issuing Party shall produce any documents obtained pursuant to a non-party

subpoena to the opposing party.
C. If the non-party production is not Bates-stamped, the Issuing Party will endorse the

non-party production with unique prefixes and Bates numbers prior to producing them to
the opposing party.
D. Nothing in this stipulation is intended to or should be interpreted as narrowing,

expanding, or otherwise affecting the rights of the parties or third-parties to object to a
subpoena.
VI.

SEARCHING
A. Initial Production. The parties will initially produce documents as specified in the

Stipulation of November 7, 2011.
B. Custodial Production. Thereafter, the parties shall meet and confer to develop a list

of custodians and search terms with which the parties will conduct electronic searches
using such agreed search term lists of custodial documents.
[Plaintiff’s proposal: delete the rest of this section]
[Plaintiff’s compromise proposal, which shall be withdrawn if not accepted by 6 pm ET
on Friday, December 17:
Plaintiff shall limit its initial request for custodial production as shown below.
Party

Number of custodians

Plaintiff

10

Google

10

01980.51928/4493090.14510860.1

-7-

AOL

8

IAC

7

Gannett

5

Target

5

In the event that a requesting party reasonably believes in good faith that productions
from additional custodians are necessary, the parties may jointly agree to modify these
limits by no more than 5 additional custodians per producing party. In the event the
requesting party seeks additional custodial production than as provided herein, the
requesting party may petition the Court for additional custodians, upon a showing of a
distinct need.]
[Defendants’ Proposal: Each requesting party shall limit its request for custodial
production to a total of five custodians per producing party. In the event that the
requesting party believes in good faith additional custodians are necessary, the parties
may jointly agree to modify this limit to eight custodians per producing party. In the
event the requesting party seeks custodial production from more than eight custodians per
producing party, the requesting party may petition the Court for additional custodians,
upon a showing of a distinct need.] Search terms will be employed for the searching of
custodial data. The total search terms will be narrowly tailored to particular issues and
limited to twenty terms (or as otherwise modified by agreement by the Parties). A
conjunctive combination of multiple words or phrases (e.g., “computer” and “system”)
narrows the search and shall count as a single search term. A disjunctive combination of
multiple words or phrases (e.g., “computer” or “system”) broadens the search, and thus
shall count as a separate search term unless they are variants of the same word.

01980.51928/4493090.14510860.1

-8-

[Plaintiff’s compromise proposal, which shall be withdrawn if not accepted by 6 pm ET
on Friday, December 17:
Should a party seek custodial production requests for more than as provided in this
paragraph, or search term lists beyond the limits agreed to by the Parties or granted by
the Court pursuant to this paragraph, the producing party may request that the Court
order the requesting party to bear all reasonable costs caused by such additional
discovery, and the requesting party may oppose that request.] [Should Plaintiff agree to
our proposal on custodians, we would agree to Plaintiff's proposal on costs]
[Defendants’ Proposal: Should a party seek custodial production requests for more than
10 custodians for any producing party, or search term lists beyond the limits agreed to by
the Parties or granted by the Court pursuant to this paragraph, the requesting party shall
bear all reasonable costs causes by such additional discovery.]
C. Locations That Will Be Searched for Responsive Documents. The parties will

search any electronic files or folders, or other parts of media, including any internal and
external hard drives and other ESI venues (including, but not limited to, recordable
optical media, media cards, thumb drives, non-volatile memory, floppy disks, work
desktop and laptop computers, email servers, intranet servers, network shares, public data
shares and/or database servers) for each identified Custodian that the Custodian
reasonably anticipates may contain non-duplicative Responsive Documents.
The parties agree to search central repositories, including central databases, or
relevant portions thereof to the extent that the party reasonably anticipates they contain
non-duplicative Responsive Documents. The parties agree to meet and confer to limit the
scope of production from central repositories if the search of central repositories (or
01980.51928/4493090.14510860.1

-9-

relevant portions thereof) that the producing party anticipates contain Responsive
Documents is unduly burdensome or is likely to be unreasonably inefficient in
identifying relevant documents.

Specifically, the parties recognize that certain

repositories, by their nature, may not effectively or reasonably be searched using
electronic search strings, and the parties agree to notify each other of any such
repositories that contain Responsive Documents. The parties will then meet and confer to
discuss the collection of Responsive Documents from such repositories, including
potentially using other effective collection methodologies.
D. Locations That Will Not Be Searched for Responsive Documents.

Each party

shall comply with their obligations to preserve, search for, and produce Responsive
Documents.
[Plaintiff’s proposal: delete defendants’ highlighted language]
[Plaintiff’s compromise proposal, which shall be withdrawn if not accepted by 6 pm ET
on Friday, December 17:
The following locations need not be searched and need not be preserved other than in the
normal course of business: information stored on personal digital assistants, personal
mobile phones, personal voicemail systems, and automated disaster recovery backup
systems and/or disaster recovery backup tapes. No party has an obligation to preserve
corporate voicemails or corporate instant messages created after September 17, 2011. If
a requesting party has a reasonable basis for seeking production of Responsive
Documents from corporate voicemail systems or corporate instant messaging systems
created prior to September 17, 2011, then the parties shall meet and confer regarding the
implementation of that request.
01980.51928/4493090.14510860.1

-10 -

[Defendants’ proposal: The following locations need not be searched and need not be
preserved other than in the normal course of business: information stored on personal
digital assistants, personal mobile phones, personal voicemail systems, instant messaging
systems, instant messaging systems, and automated disaster recovery backup systems
and/or disaster recovery backup tapes.]
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree that Responsive Documents that a
Custodian indicates are stored on an archival storage medium that the Custodian can
readily identify and locate, that cannot be located in any other repository of information,
and that can reasonably be searched, will be searched. In addition, nothing in this
paragraph shall limit a receiving party’s right to request from a producing party more
information about the nature of and burden associated with obtaining documents from a
particular location. The parties further recognize their obligations to preserve any
potentially relevant sources of data, whether live or in archival form, for purposes of this
litigation.
E. Source Code. To the extent relevant to the Litigation, source code will be made

available for inspection pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order. The parties agree
that the search terms will not be applied to source code.
VII.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Objections Preserved.

Nothing in this protocol shall be interpreted to require

disclosure of irrelevant information or relevant information protected by the attorneyclient privilege, work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity.
The parties do not waive any objections as to the production, discoverability,
admissibility, or confidentiality of documents and ESI.
01980.51928/4493090.14510860.1

-11 -

B. No Effect on Cost Shifting. Nothing in this Agreement shall affect, in any way, a

producing party’s right to seek reimbursement for costs associated with collection,
review, and/or production of documents or ESI.
C. No Waiver. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), the inadvertent production

of a privileged or work product protected ESI is not a waiver in the pending case or in
any other federal or state proceeding.

Moreover, the mere production of ESI in a

litigation as part of a mass production shall not itself constitute a waiver for any purpose.

01980.51928/4493090.14510860.1

-12 -

Appendix 1: ESI Metadata and Coding Fields
A. Image Load File shall contain the following comma-delimited fields:
BEGBATES, VOLUME, IMAGE FILE PATH, DOCUMENT BREAK, FOLDER
BREAK, BOX BREAK, PAGE COUNT
B. Metadata Load File shall be delimited according to the following characters:
o Delimiter = D(ASCII:0020)
o Text-Qualifier = þ (ASCII:00254)
C. The following fields will appear in the metadata load file in the order displayed below:
Field Name
Field Description
BEGBATES
Beginning Bates number as stamped on the production image
ENDBATES
Ending Bates number as stamped on the production image
BEGATTACH
First production Bates number of the first document in a family
ENDATTACH
Last production Bates number of the last document in a family
CUSTODIAN
Individual from whom the documents originated
NATIVELINK
Native File Link (Excel files only)
SUBJECT
Subject line of email
DATESENT
Date email was sent (format: MM/DD/YYYY)
TIMESENT
Time email was sent
TO
All recipients that were included on the “To” line of the email
FROM
The name and email address of the sender of the email
CC
All recipients that were included on the “CC” line of the email
BCC
All recipients that were included on the “BCC” line of the email
AUTHOR
Any value populated in the Author field of the document properties
FILENAME(Edoc
only)

Filename of an electronic document

DATEMOD (Edoc
only)

Date an electronic document was last modified (format:
MM/DD/YYYY)

DATECREATED
(Edoc only)

Date the document was created (format: MM/DD/YYYY)

01980.51928/4493090.14510860.1

-13 -

01980.51928/4493090.14510860.1

-14 -

Document comparison by Workshare Professional on Thursday, December 15, 2011
4:00:09 PM
Input:
Document 1 ID
Description
Document 2 ID
Description
Rendering set

file://C:/Documents and Settings/janepratt/Desktop/DAP
12.15/DSMDB-#3009743-v1DS_redline_to_QE_12_7_ESI_plan.DOC
DSMDB-#3009743-v1-DS_redline_to_QE_12_7_ESI_plan
file://C:/Documents and Settings/janepratt/Desktop/DAP
12.15/4510860 Stip.DOC
4510860 Stip
Standard

Legend:
Insertion
Deletion
Moved from
Moved to
Style change
Format change
Moved deletion
Inserted cell
Deleted cell
Moved cell
Split/Merged cell
Padding cell
Statistics:
Count
Insertions
Deletions
Moved from
Moved to
Style change
Format changed
Total changes

2
5
0
0
0
0
7