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

Filing 119

Declaration re 117 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff I/P Engine's Motion to Compel Defendant Google, Inc.'s Custodial Document Production Declaration of Charles J. Monterio, Jr. in Support of I/P Engine's Motion to Compel Defendant Google Inc.'s Custodial Document Production by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Sherwood, Jeffrey)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
AOL, INC. et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
I/P ENGINE, INC.,

Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512

DECLARATION OF CHARLES J. MONTERIO, JR.
IN SUPPORT OF I/P ENGINE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S CUSTODIAL DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

I, Charles J. Monterio, Jr., declare as follows:
1.

I am an attorney with the law firm of Dickstein Shapiro LLP, 1825 Eye Street

N.W., Washington, DC 20006 and am counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) in the
above-captioned case. This declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiff I/P Engine’s Motion
to Compel Defendant Google Inc.’s Custodial Document Production, filed herewith.
2.

Google’s technical production consisted of technical documents from Google’s

internal technical document repository, a collection of technical wikis prepared by and used by
Google’s engineers.
3.

That technical production did not include a single custodial document or any other

relevant documents responsive to I/P Engine’s document requests.
4.

Google and I/P Engine, through counsel, conducted a meet and confer on

April 9, 2012.

1
DSMDB-3048972

5.

During the April 9th meet and confer, Google stated that it had collected 250,000

custodial documents, stated that it needed to review those documents, and that it would produce
all of those documents by June 15, 2012.
6.

Google’s primary reason for stating June 15 was that it needed time to review the

documents for privilege.
7.

During the call, Google refused to agree to an earlier production date for all or

even a portion of those documents.
8.

When I/P Engine stated that it would move to compel, Google’s counsel stated

that such a motion would be futile, because it would not be ruled upon until May at the earliest,
and that the Court would not order Google to immediately turn over all of its documents.

Dated: April 11, 2012

By: ___/s/ Charles J. Monterio, Jr. ______
Charles J. Monterio Jr.
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.

2
DSMDB-3048972

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 11th day of April, 2012, the foregoing DECLARATION OF
CHARLES J. MONTERIO, JR. IN SUPPORT OF I/P ENGINE’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S CUSTODIAL DOCUMENT PRODUCTION,
was served via the Court’s CM/ECF system, on the following:

Stephen Edward Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W Main St
Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
[e-mail]
David Bilsker
David Perlson
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Robert L. Burns
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
[e-mail]
Cortney S. Alexander
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
[e-mail]
/s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood

3
DSMDB-3048972