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

Filing 106

Declaration re 105 Memorandum in Support of Emily O'Brien by Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W)(Noona, Stephen)

Emily O'Brien
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Emily O'Brien
Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:20 PM
Monterio, Charles
QE-IP Engine; zz-IPEngine; [e-mail]
I/P Engine v. AOL et. al. 3-14-12 Letter from C. Monterio to E. O'Brien

Charles,
I received your voicemail indicating that you were checking to see if supplementation of the infringement
contentions by March 23 would work for Plaintiff. However, in your voicemail, you do not mention whether
Plaintiff’s supplementation would resolve all of the issues raised by Defendants, per my earlier email. As
requested in my prior emails, please confirm tonight—in writing—that Plaintiff will supplement its
infringement contentions to respond to all issues previously raised by Defendants by March 23, 2012.
In response to your question, we are not in a position to agree to any stipulation regarding non-Google
defendants at this time.
Thank you,
Emily

Emily O'Brien
Associate,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-875-6323 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.  

From: Emily O'Brien
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:59 AM
To: 'Monterio, Charles'
Cc: zz-IPEngine; QE-IP Engine; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et. al. 3-14-12 Letter from C. Monterio to E. O'Brien

Charles, 

Despite Defendants’ repeated requests, your letter of March 14 was the first time that I/P Engine suggested that it 
would supplement its contentions.  If Plaintiff will confirm today that 1) it will supplement its infringement contentions 
by Friday, March 23 and 2) that this supplementation would address the issues raised by Defendants and outlined in our 
letters of February 27, March 2, and March 7, and discussed during the meet and confer of March 1, 2012, we will not 
move to compel.  We reject your attempt to once again tie Plaintiff’s supplementation of its infringement contentions to 
other issues.    
1

As to your inquiry regarding Google’s supplementation of its non‐infringement contentions, Google presently intends to 
supplement its interrogatory response regarding its non‐infringement contentions, based on the incomplete 
infringement contentions we have received to date, by Friday, March 30.   

Thank you, 
Emily 

From: Monterio, Charles [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:30 AM
To: Emily O'Brien
Cc: zz-IPEngine; QE-IP Engine; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et. al. 3-14-12 Letter from C. Monterio to E. O'Brien

Emily,
During the March 13, 2012 meet and confer, we discussed the parties’ views on supplementation. In sum, we
stated that I/P Engine believed that supplementation was appropriate in view of the ongoing discovery in this
case. We also stated that we wanted to understand defendants’ recently proposed language in Meg’s March 7,
2012 email related to the language concerning supplementation of contentions that could be interpreted to act as
a form of cutoff. One of our concerns mentioned was that we were surprised by the language because
defendants had previously rejected a firm deadline for supplementation. Thus, we sought clarification of
ambiguities in defendants’ proposal, which you promised but have not provided.
With respect to I/P Engine’s supplemental infringement contentions, our position has been consistent. In
November 2011, I/P Engine served upon defendants its preliminary infringement contentions based upon
publicly-available documents. In February 2012, I/P Engine supplemented those infringement contentions
based upon its initial review of the incomplete production of certain technical documents. Since that time,
defendants continue to produce additional documents, and I/P Engine continues to review those documents. In
addition, no depositions have been taken.
As for Google’s threatened motion to compel, we believe that such a motion is both futile and moot. I/P
Engine’s supplemental contentions of February 17, 2012, were based on Google’s incomplete document
production. As Google supplements its production and produces witnesses, I/P Engine will timely supplement
its infringement contentions.
With respect to your demand for a date certain for the date of supplementation, we note that Google regularly
has refused to agree to specific dates for its discovery obligations. Nevertheless, we are agreeable to setting
mutually agreeable dates for the supplementation of infringement contentions and non-infringement
contentions.
Charles J. Monterio, Jr.
Associate
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
1825 Eye Street NW | Washington, DC 20006
Tel [phone]| Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
From: Emily O'Brien [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:05 PM
To: Monterio, Charles
2

Cc: zz-IPEngine; QE-IP Engine; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et. al. 3-14-12 Letter from C. Monterio to E. O'Brien

Charles, you mischaracterize yesterday’s call.  You never stated that Plaintiff would be supplementing its infringement 
contentions.  You also never stated Plaintiff was retracting its previously articulated position that it would stand on its 
current contentions.   

Our position as to what is needed to resolve the dispute has been clear.  Plaintiff cannot delay resolution of this very real 
dispute with vague assurances and statements.  Specifically, your letter still does not provide any date certain for 
supplementation.  Nor does it confirm that any supplementation—whenever and if it would occur—would address the 
issues raised by Defendants and outlined in our letters of February 27, March 2, and March 7, and discussed during the 
meet and confer of March 1, 2012.   

Absent confirmation by close of business tomorrow of a date certain for supplementation in the near future and that 
Plaintiff’s supplementation will address all these issues, we will proceed with our motion to compel.  

Thank you, 
Emily 

Emily O'Brien
Associate,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-875-6323 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.  

From: Chagnon, Armands [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 1:57 PM
To: QE-IP Engine; [e-mail]
Cc: zz-IPEngine
Subject: I/P Engine v. AOL et. al. 3-14-12 Letter from C. Monterio to E. O'Brien
Counsel,
Please see the attached correspondence.
Regards,
Armands
Armands Chagnon | Senior Paralegal
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street NW | Washington, DC 20006
Tel [phone] | Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

3

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

4