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 I

DICKSTEINSHAPIROLLP
1825 Eye Street NW I Washington, DC 20006-5403
[phone] I FAX [phone] I dicksteinshapiro.com

TEL

June 5, 2012
Via E-mail

Jen Ghaussy, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street. 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Re:

Outstanding Google Discovery Obligations

Dear Jen:
I write in response to your May 31, 2012 letter regarding Defendants' deposition notice for
Alexander Berger, Plaintiff's recent deposition count proposal, I/P Engine's deposition of Mr.
Cook, and Google's outstanding discovery obligations.
With respect to Defendants' deposition notice for Alexander Berger, Mr. Berger is available for
deposition on Wednesday, July 11 in New York, NY. Please confirm that you will go forward
with his deposition on July 11.
With respect to Defendants' counter-proposal regarding deposition count, I/P Engine believes
Defendants' proposal is unfair. I/P Engine, within reason and within the bounds of an agreedupon deposition count, is entitled to notice and depose any fact witness it desires. Under
Defendants' countet-proposal, however, I/P Engine will not be afforded those rights. For
example, Google has imposed upon 1/P Engine that Mr. Alferness' 30(b)(6) deposition will also
be his individual deposition — therefore theoretically imposing upon 1/P Engine the use of one of
its three 30(b)(1) de positions. Google could likewise impose such conditions on all, or most, of
its upcoming 30(b)(6) designees and therefore expend all of 1/P Engine's 30(b)(1) depositions
without I/P Engine ever choosing which fact witnesses it wants to notice and depose. I/P Engine
will not agree to this proposal. In the interests of resolution, I/P Engine will consider a proposal
where UP Engine agrees to take from IAC, Gannett, Target and AOL an equivalent number of
individual depositions as the number of witnesses listed in that Defendant's initial disclosures.
Additionally, I/P Engine proposes taking from Google a total of 5 individual depositions
provided that any 30(b)(6) depositions (such as that of Mr. Alferness) are excluded from the
agreed-upon deposition count. Please let us know Defendants' position as to VP Engine's
proposal by June 7. If the parties are at an impasse, please let us know.

Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Silicon Valley I Stamford I Washington, DC
DSMDB-3066226

DICKSTEINSHAPIROLLP
Jen Ghaussy, Esq.
June 5, 2012
Page 2
Regarding Mr. Cook's deposition, we asked for an explanation of Mr. Cook's unavailability in
the same way you asked us to explain the unavailability of the inventors. If I/P Engine's request
"is counterproductive and inefficient" than Google admits its conduct as to the inventors'
depositions was likewise counterproductive and inefficient. You are claiming that Mr. Cook
does not have a single free day over a 3 week time period. We are simply requesting explanation
as to why—again as you requested and we provided regarding the inventors' schedules.
Regarding the requested prior Google AdWords litigation documents, since I/P Engine's
proposed date for production was not satisfactory to Google, please provide by June 7 a date by
which I/P Engine can expect to receive these documents. 1/P Engine needs these documents to
adequately prepare for the upcoming, scheduled Google 30(b)(6) depositions, and is being
prejudiced by the length of time that it is taking Google to produce the requested documents. I/P
Engine reserves all rights.
With respect to the contention topics of I/P Engine's noticed 30(b)(6) depositions, I/P Engine
acknowledges your statement that "Defendants will not be providing witnesses to testify as to the
contention portions of Liability Topic Nos. 14-17 to IAC, Target, and Gannett; Liability Topic
Nos. 17-19 to Google; Damages Topic Nos. 10-11 to IAC, Target, and Gannett; and Damages
Topic Nos. 17-18 to Google at this time." I/P Engine reserves all rights going forward on this
issue; however, before I/P Engine considers taking action to the Court, 1/P Engine requests that
Defendants clarify its statement by June 7 as to why they include the phrase "at this time."
Regarding Damages Topic No. 2 to Google, your letter states that you "do not believe it is
reasonable, for all of the reasons outlined in Google's objections" to provide a witness to testify
as to the percentage of total search advertising results for which AdWords and AdSense for
Search, rather than other search advertising systems, were used by end users. Google's only
objections to this portion of the 30(b)(6) notice were that the terms "total search advertising
results," "end users" and "other search advertising systems" were vague and ambiguous, and that
the phrase "percentage of total search advertising results for which Google AdWords and Google
AdSense for Search , . . was used by end users" was unintelligible. Since then, however, the
parties have discussed this topic on at least two occasions and based on those discussions it
appears Google has a clear understanding what information I/P Engine is seeking. Thus,
Google's objections have been addressed. Therefore, please explain Google's basis for
concluding that this :equest/topic is "unreasonable." Google's objections do not clearly explain
why Damages Topic No. 2 to Google is not an appropriate topic that is relevant to this litigation
and will not lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Please let us know Google's final position
by June 7. If the parties are at an impasse, please let us know.

DSMDB-3066226

DICKSTEINS dAP I ROLLP
Jen Ghaussy, Esq.
June 5, 2012
Page 3
With respect to the documents Google has requested be destroyed, I/P Engine confirms that it
has destroyed the identified documents.
Best r ants,

/

Charles J. M nter
202) 420-5167
[e-mail]
CJM/
cc:

Stephen E. Noona
David Bilsker
Kenneth W. Brothers
Jeffrey K. Sherwood
Dawn Ruderko Albert

DSMDB-3066226