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)
Jen Ghaussy
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Brothers, Kenneth [BrothersK@dicksteinshapiro.com]
Friday, December 16, 2011 4:15 PM
David Perlson
zz-IPEngine; QE-IP Engine; senoona@kaufcan.com
RE: IP Engine v. AOL et al. - Google's Refusal Google's Refusal to Respond to IP Engine's
Interrogatory No. 2
David:
Thank you for agreeing during our meet and confer to amend your clients' responses to Interrogatory No. 2. I understand
you will get this to us by the middle of next week.
I also will await your proposed additional language for page 8 of the draft Protective Order regarding the printouts of
source code, and the draft Joint Discovery Plan p. 4 re revising the language re deponents to include a Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition for each defendant, Rule 30(b)(1) deponents equal to the number of each defendants' Rule 26(a) disclosure of
current or former employees, as well as an agreement that the parties will negotiate in good faith regarding any additional
depositions. I understand that you may propose language for additional time with the inventors, which I will consider; as I
think about it, I believe that the amount of Rule 30(b)(6) time should at least be the same as for the inventors.
The parties were unable to reach agreement re limiting the custodians and key words for the searching of the nontechnical documents. Consistent with your description, I understand that defendants will proceed with the non-technical
document production consistent with their obligations to conduct a reasonable search for and production of responsive
documents, with additional follow-up as appropriate. I invited you to share with me by no late than 6 pm ET on Tuesday,
Dec. 20, a specific proposal on how defendants might be prepared to meet this obligation that would result in a more
targeted production of documents.
I offered to limit the search for and production of IAC, Target and Gannett to damages only in exchange for a stipulation to
the effect that a judgment of infringement of Google's AdWords system is binding upon those entities relating to their use
of Google's AdWords partner systems. While you were not prepared to accept that offer now, please advise if you may be
interested later on.
In response to your request that I send you a list of items to produce from prior AdWords litigations, please produce the
following (with exhibits/attachments):
Complaints
Answers
Google discovery responses
Dispositive pleadings
Pretrial orders
Motions in limine pleadings
Daubert pleadings
Rule 50/59 motion pleadings
All pleadings to which was attached a declaration from a current or former Google employee
All hearing and trial transcripts
All fact deposition transcripts of current or former Google employees
All expert reports
All expert deposition transcripts
All scheduling and substantive orders (including discovery orders relating to Google's compliance)
All judgments
All appellate briefs and orders
All settlement agreements
In response to your request that I send you a list of items to produce regarding willfulness, please produce documents
regarding or relating to the patents in suit (including references in litigation, reexamination proceedings, prosecution of
patents Google sought, owned or licensed), the inventors, WiseWire, or Lycos.
1
You also agreed to advise us early next week of the dates by which Google intends to make its ongoing productions. I
stressed how plaintiff did not want the production efforts to cease over the holidays.
Based upon our discussion of willfulness documents and on Meg's letter of this afternoon, I understand that your clients
do not intend to withhold production of any relevant, responsive non-privileged documents based upon their objections.
Please advise if this understanding is not correct.
Regards, Ken
Confidentiality Statement
This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may
contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this
confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing,
copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. Dickstein Shapiro reserves the right to monitor any communication
that is created, received, or sent on its network. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail
message and permanently delete the original message.
To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@dicksteinshapiro.com
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
www.dicksteinshapiro.com
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?