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

Filing 147

Declaration re 145 Opposition (of Emily O'Brien) in Support of Google Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Google's Custodial Document Production by Google 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, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y)(Noona, Stephen)

Download PDF
DICKSTEINS HAP 1825 TEL Eye 202 NW Street 420-2200 IROLLP DC 200065403 Washington 202 FAX 420-2201 dicksteinshapiro.com 10 2012 January Via E-mail Kammerud Esq Margaret Quinn Emanuel Urquhart LLP Sullivan 50 California Street 22nd Floor CA San Francisco Re Googles Proposed I/P Engine Inc Engine Engine believes to responsive received Engines the requests 5867799 or 664 yet will of majority not I/P result in Engines letter 2012 of January discovery that discovery requests is I/P adequately are focused Googles proposed search terms are limited to nothing more As we understand your letter Google has search terms following to The Google Inc.s of the asserted patents Googles knowledge agreed Google search terms Googles proposed 11P upon Googles accused systems than and Search Terms Custodians Meg Dear I/P 94111 5867799 or 799 /2 patent or 6775664 or 6775664 or 10/045198 420 or 6314420 or 6314420 or 09/204149 pat w/4 664 appl w/4 I/P or 198 420 149 or Engine Andrew Donald demand scan /3 Ken w/3 Lang Don w/3 Kosak or or search search /3 based content collaborative network or content-based filter feedback filter data informon Lycos content /2 profile collaborative filter or collaborative filtering /10 content filter or content filtering hybrid /2 filter or hybrid /2 filtering Wisewire Los Angeles New York Orange County Silicon Valley Stamford Washington DC DSMDB-301 7041 IC KSTE AP IRO INS Kammerud Esq Margaret 10 2012 January Page We note that incumbent upon documents Google are related to that requests of these search terms all virtually Google I/P to relating Engines documents damages-related letter asserts improper and nothing that produce responsive this litigation its Engines document in Engine limited review with comply its discovery in documents it is moving forward that that are requested which documents even as refuses it is search terms with by to has an obligation it believes documents will be helpful Based on the parties have held We I/P thus far expect Engines I/P accept to Engine and are relevant I/P that timely Googles to Engine seeks TIP in discovery Google and the meet and confers obligations it etc meaningless of Googles technical clear that documents documents good faith proposed search terms themselves Googles production regarding broad believe comparison indemnification have not disputed and knowledge requests We propose one search term not related to You non-privileged I/P based on to yet of the asserted patents knowledge to has Engines document I/P testing documents documents the parties assist to manner Google however for Engines I/P to search for and produce responsive to obligations requests marketing Your January its relate of the asserted patents knowledge comply with to to appear Google suggested search terms With regard one to Mr of which advertising custodian 17 months suggestion new ago to the custodian contemplated as reflect that processes 44 version about factors to Ad Words witnesses Mr that If is for Ad Words for to heavily to the basis the Bright in were Response Head of Testing trial person as the 2005 related to held just transition DumbASS between to and are whether custodian however scope of responsive documents and an appropriate confirm I/P that Google Engines see e.g IPE involved relevant is provide These two individuals the transition in As for for discovery Mr that represents from persons most of Googles changes 0000070-79 the design Googles AdWords systems and G-IPE-0000078 affirmatively requests and quality assessments Score his that an appropriate identifying Please please Googles given file custodians obvious example of an appropriate testing documents including so for Huber his custodial in litigation Googles AdWords system on Quality Varian G-IPE-0001629 this is requests are responsive the testing and made related to of knowledge designates Mr to additional and development position Mr Huber an Mr Jack Ancone of an appropriate has custody an authority Googles relevant that engineering have information not applies to Engines critical of responsive it it Engine also proposed an as of yet unidentified Score The knowledgeable out TIP address I/P Quality custodians the period Engine believes I/P overall Is Googles most knowledge SmartASS degree during three reasonable Engine suggested led the Google would at similar rationale as identified the role position Huber from 2003-2011 claims Engines for that Jeff products immediate past I/P I/P proposed custodians Hal Varian that are Google holds him and Googles own documents development and decision See e.g G-IPE-0000378-81 making G-IPE-0015840- DSMDB-3017041 DICKSTEINSHAPIROLLP Kammerud Esq Margaret 10 2012 January Page We look forward these issues having hesitate Best to your response and likewise meet and confer to contact if us hopes that I/P the parties teleconference you Engine remains willing can work to together on January 11 2012 meet and confer to In the solution meantime to We resolve propose please do not have any questions regard /7 .-charles 202 Mont 10 Jr 420-5167 MonterioC@dicksteinshapiro.com CJM/ cc Stephen David Bilsker Kenneth Jeffrey DeAnna Noona Brothers Sherwood Allen DSMDB-3017041

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?