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

Filing 277

MOTION for Sanctions Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Second Motion for Discovery Sanctions Regarding Untimely Discovery Responses by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Sherwood, Jeffrey)

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

PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.’S
SECOND MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS
REGARDING UNTIMELY DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P
Engine”) requests that this Court remedy the untimely and highly prejudicial discovery tactics
employed by Defendants by precluding them from using in any form (including any reliance
thereon by their experts), for any purpose in this litigation:
1. Google’s First Supplemental and Second Supplemental Responses to I/P Engine’s
Interrogatory No. 15, served on August 29, and September 13, respectively, which is
directed to Google’s revenues for its U.S. based properties. I/P Engine also seeks to
have stricken any reliance by Defendants’ damages expert, Dr. Keith Ugone, on these
Supplemental Interrogatory Responses or the data included in these responses;
2. Emails and the information provided therein produced as Bates Nos. G-IPE-0888897,
G-IPE-0888898-99, G-IPE-0888900 and G-IPE-888901-02. I/P Engine also seeks to
preclude and have stricken any reliance by Defendants’ damages expert, Dr. Ugone,
on these emails or the data provided therein; and
3. Google’s Supplemental Response to I/P Engine’s Interrogatory No. 9, served on
August 30, which is directed to Google’s non-infringing alternatives contentions. I/P
Engine also seeks to preclude and have stricken any reliance by Google’s experts, Dr.
Ugone and Dr. Ungar, on these responses and the information provided therein.

1

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P
Engine, Inc.’s Second Motion for Discovery Sanctions Regarding Untimely Discovery
Response, precluding the use of and striking these untimely discovery responses is the only
meaningful remedy for Google’s violation of the discovery rules. Any other remedy (such as an
extension of time) would reward Google for its dilatory tactics.
Dated: September 21, 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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Jeffrey K. Sherwood (Virginia Bar No. 19222)
Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
Kenneth W. Brothers
Dawn Rudenko Albert
Charles J. Monterio, Jr.
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.

2

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH

In accordance with Local Rule 37(E), I certify that counsel conferred in good faith to
resolve this dispute prior to the filing of the present Motion. Counsel’s meet-and-confer efforts
included correspondence and telephonic meet-and-confers.

/s/ Charles J. Monterio, Jr.
Charles J. Monterio, Jr.

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 21st day of September, 2012, the foregoing PLAINTIFF I/P
ENGINE, INC.’S SECOND MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS REGARDING
UNTIMELY DISCOVERY RESPONSES, was served via the Court’s CM/ECF system and
via Hand Delivery, on the following:
Stephen Edward Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W Main St
Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
[e-mail]
David Bilsker
David Perlson
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Robert L. Burns
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
[e-mail]
Cortney S. Alexander
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
[e-mail]

/s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood

4