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

Filing 148

Reply to Motion re 117 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff I/P Engine's Motion to Compel Defendant Google, Inc.'s Custodial Document Production filed 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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE’S MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE’S CUSTODIAL DOCUMENT PRODUCTION Google’s document production responsive to I/P Engine’s document requests, which were served November 7, 2011, was due 30 days after the request, therefore, it is 138 days late. The only question is how long Google should be permitted to drag out its production of documents. Google admits in its Opposition (at 7, 8, and 11) that, several weeks ago, it collected 115,000 documents relating to its nine employees that are the agreed-upon custodians. This averages approximately 12,750 documents per custodian. Google states that it has 55 attorneys reviewing these documents. Opposition at 11. If each member of Google’s document team looked at 230 documents in a day, then that team could complete the review for a single DSMDB-3052806 custodian in a single day.1 Google’s team could have completed its review of the 115,000 documents in 9 days – well before Google filed its opposition brief.2 Dated: April 23, 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. 1 Google says the average length of each document is 2.5 pages. Opposition at 12. A typical document reviewer can look at about 50 documents per hour. Each member of Google’s document review team only needs less than 5 hours to review 230 documents. 2 Google admitted (at 8) that it had all 115,000 of the documents ready for review by no later than April 6. Of course, it has known that the files of the nine custodians would be searched for relevant documents since January 2012, when the parties agreed upon the nine custodians. 2 DSMDB-3052806 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of April, 2012, the foregoing REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE’S MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE’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 3 DSMDB-3052806

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?