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

Filing 120

MOTION to Expedite Plaintiff I/P Engine's Motion to Shorten Google's Time to Respond to I/P Engine's Motion to Compel Defendant Google, Inc.'s Custodial Document Production by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Sherwood, Jeffrey)

Download PDF
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 PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE’S MOTION TO SHORTEN GOOGLE’S TIME TO RESPOND TO I/P ENGINE’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S CUSTODIAL DOCUMENT PRODUCTION Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) moves to shorten Google’s time to respond to I/P Engine’s Motion to Compel Defendant Google Inc.’s Custodial Document Production. I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) served its initial document requests upon Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) more than six months ago, on November 7, 2011. On April 9, 2012, Google for the first time identified a target date for the production of those documents: June 15, 2012 – more than eight months after service of I/P Engine’s document requests. Google’s delays, and its proposed production date, are unreasonable, reflect a disregard for discovery procedures in this judicial district, and create tremendous prejudice for I/P Engine. I/P Engine’s Motion to Compel requests relief from the Court to address these delays and time is of the essence. In an effort to expedite the briefing process for I/P Engine’s Motion to Compel and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P Engine’s Motion to Shorten Google’s Time to Respond to I/P Engine’s Motion to Compel, I/P Engine DSMDB-3049035v1 respectfully requests this Court require Google to respond to I/P Engine’s Motion to Compel on or before April 18, 2012. Dated: April 11, 2012 By: /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood Donald C. Schultz (Virginia Bar No. 30531) W. Ryan Snow (Virginia Bar No. 47423) CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN PLC 150 West Main Street Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 623-3000 Facsimile: (757) 623-5735 Jeffrey K. Sherwood (Virginia Bar No. 19222) Frank C. Cimino, Jr. Kenneth W. Brothers DeAnna Allen Charles J. Monterio, Jr. DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 1825 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 420-2200 Facsimile: (202) 420-2201 Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. 2 DSMDB-3049035v1 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH In accordance with Local Rule 37(E), I certify that counsel conferred in good faith to resolve this dispute prior to the filing of the present Motion. Counsel’s meet-and-confer efforts are set forth in I/P Engine’s accompanying memorandum. Counsel, in good faith, tried to reach out to Google’s counsel by leaving two phone messages and sending one email over the past two days. Google’s counsel has not yet responded. /s/Kenneth W. Brothers Kenneth W. Brothers 3 DSMDB-3049035v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 11th day of April, 2012, the foregoing PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE’S MOTION TO SHORTEN GOOGLE’S TIME TO RESPOND TO 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 senoona@kaufcan.com David Bilsker David Perlson Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com Robert L. Burns Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Two Freedom Square 11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190 robert.burns@finnegan.com Cortney S. Alexander Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 3500 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 94111 cortney.alexander@finnegan.com /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood 4 DSMDB-3049035v1

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?