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

Filing 180

Declaration re 179 Opposition, of Jennifer Ghaussy in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take 30(b)(1) Depositions by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (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)(Noona, Stephen)

EXHIBIT M

Jen Ghaussy
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Emily O'Brien
Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:51 PM
Monterio, Charles
zz-IPEngine; QE-IP Engine; Stephen E. Noona; Alexander, Cortney; Burns, Robert
I/P Engine v. AOL et. al. 6-19-12 Letter from C. Monterio to E. O'Brien

Charles,
I write to follow up on our call today regarding the number of depositions of Defendants in the I/P Engine case.
As discussed on our call and in our correspondence below, we do not see Plaintiff’s most recent proposal as a
compromise. Instead, it is a reiteration of Plaintiff’s prior proposal that we rejected recently and earlier in this
case, before the parties reached agreement on depositions of the Defendants. Our clients, as we have said,
would prefer to go forward with the parties’ original agreement on the number of depositions and the identity of
the witnesses. You stated that if the Defendants insist on this agreement, then Plaintiff will go forward with a
motion on Monday.
During our call, you and I both indicated that our clients may be willing to compromise, if possible. In order to
know if a compromise is possible, we need to know specifically what Plaintiff wants regarding its depositions
of the Defendants. Can Plaintiff identify the individual witnesses it wishes to take from each Defendant,
including those that are not listed in the Defendants’ Initial Disclosures? Will Plaintiff agree to a smaller
number of depositions from each Defendant than in its last proposal, and if so what is that number? These are
the same types of specifics that the Court has indicated it will want to know in trying to resolve this issue. Also,
if you can provide a more specific compromise proposal, we will consider it with our clients and see if the
parties can reach a reasonable new agreement.
As we previously discussed, I’m generally available tomorrow via telephone for further conference.
Thank you,
Emily

Emily O'Brien
Associate,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-875-6323 Direct
415.875.6600 Main Office Number
415.875.6700 FAX
[e-mail]
www.quinnemanuel.com
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.  

From: Jen Ghaussy
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:36 PM
To: Monterio, Charles
Cc: zz-IPEngine; QE-IP Engine; Stephen E. Noona
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et. al. 6-19-12 Letter from C. Monterio to E. O'Brien
1

Charles, rather than propose a compromise, Plaintiff’s letter simply repeats the same position that it has taken
previously. This is not productive. We have rejected this proposal in the past, including before the parties
entered into the operative agreement. We would be happy to consider an actual compromise proposal from
Plaintiff. In the meantime, Google will continue to operate under the terms of the parties’ agreement, under
which Plaintiff is not permitted to take Derek Cook’s deposition.
Best,
Jen 

From: Chagnon, Armands [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:43 AM
To: QE-IP Engine; [e-mail]
Cc: zz-IPEngine
Subject: I/P Engine v. AOL et. al. 6-19-12 Letter from C. Monterio to E. O'Brien
Counsel,
Please see the attached correspondence.
Regards,
Armands
Armands Chagnon | Senior Paralegal
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street NW | Washington, DC 20006
Tel [phone] | Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

Confidentiality Statement
This email 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 email 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 email message and
permanently delete the original message.
To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to [e-mail]
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
www.DicksteinShapiro.com

2