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)
quinn emanuel trial lawyers | san francisco
50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL: (415) 875-6600 FAX: (415) 875-6700
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
(415) 875-6316
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
megkammerud@quinnemanuel.com
March 1, 2012
Charles Monterio Jr.
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
1825 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Re:
I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al.
Dear Charles:
I am writing in regards to the parties’ ongoing discussion of document custodians and search
terms, including your February 24, 2012 letter.
We have run test searches on the terms below:
((“Overture” or “Goto.com”) w/5 (“AdWords”))
((“Yahoo” w/4 “Search Marketing”) w/5 (“AdWords”)
((“Microsoft” w/4 (“AdCenter” or “Adcenter”)) w/5 (“AdWords”))
((“AOL” w/4 “Sponsored Listings”) w/5 (“AdWords”))
“relevance score”
Assuming the test searches accurately reflect the hit percentages for all custodians, we will use
these terms as well. We reserve our rights as to these terms in the event that they later result in
burdensome numbers of hits for any custodian.
The term ((“Relevance”) and ((“Inventory”) or “Ads Coverage”)), however, retrieves too high a
percentage of hits when run through custodial documents. It would be unduly burdensome for
Google to use this search term as currently drafted.
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL (213) 443-3000 FAX (213) 443-3100
NEW YORK | 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL (650) 801-5000 FAX (650) 801-5100
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL (312) 705-7400 FAX (312) 705-7401
LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL +44(0) 20 7653 2000 FAX +44(0) 20 7653 2100
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Bldg., 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL +81 3 5510 1711 FAX +81 3 5510 1712
MANNHEIM | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL +49(0) 621 43298 6000 FAX +49(0) 621 43298 6100
We are continuing to review and consider the proposed terms you stated were included in I/P
Engine’s supplemental contentions. We will respond under separate cover regarding those
terms.
Finally, your letter asks that we confirm that there were not problems with the test searches run
on certain terms listed in my February 13, 2012 letter. We do not understand your request. The
test searches returned acceptable hit percentages. As stated in my letter, assuming the test
searches accurately reflect the hit percentages for all custodians, we will use these terms. We
reserve our rights as to these terms in the event that they later result in burdensome numbers of
hits for any custodian. Your letter also states, “To the extent these test searches are now
collected documents, please confirm that the documents resulting from these searches are ready
for production.” We also do not understand this request. Test searches are not “collected
documents.”
As always, we remain willing to meet and confer to resolve any discovery issues, and hope that
you similarly remain willing to work together on these issues in a timely and efficient manner.
Very truly yours,
Margaret P. Kammerud
01980.51928/4630086.1
2
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?