I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
121
Memorandum in Support re 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 filed by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(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
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 DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S CUSTODIAL DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
As set forth in I/P Engine’s Motion to Compel Defendant Google Inc.’s Custodial
Document Production, more than six months ago, on November 7, 2011, I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P
Engine”) served its initial document requests upon Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”). Six
months later, however, Google has not produced a single custodial document, even though it
acknowledges that it has collected those documents. I/P Engine repeatedly has been requesting
Google for these documents, but without success. 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.
Google should be ordered to immediately produce its custodial documents. As explained by
Google, the only reason it says it needs until June 15, 2012 to produce the custodial documents is
because it claims it would take that long to review the documents it already has collected. In
DSMDB-3049030v1
other words, Google’s delay is nothing more than a question of allocation of resources. Google’s
counsel has the manpower and the resources to review the documents in whatever amount of
time the Court orders. Reviewing the documents will take the same number of hours and will
incur the same expense whether it is done over the next two weeks, or the next sixty days. It is
not a matter of burden or expense – Google simply does not want to review and produce the
documents quickly. This Court cannot allow Google to evade its discovery obligations simply
by choosing to allocate fewer resources to a task so that it takes longer. I/P Engine’s Motion to
Compel requests relief from the Court to address these delays, however, time is of the essence.
Initial expert reports are due on July 18, 2012. Trial is set for October 16, 2012.
Local Rule 7(F)(1) provides that a party has eleven (11) days to respond to a motion
(which is increased by three (3) days by service by electronic means), “unless otherwise directed
by the Court.” Good cause exists for this Court to direct a shorter time.
The parties are at an impasse. 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. In an effort to expedite the briefing process for I/P Engine’s
2
DSMDB-3049030v1
Motion to Compel and for the foregoing reasons, I/P Engine respectfully asks this Court to
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.
3
DSMDB-3049030v1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 11th day of April, 2012, the foregoing 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 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-3049030v1
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?