I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
523
Declaration re 521 Opposition, of Margaret P. Kammerud in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Third Motion for Discovery Sanctions (Public Version) by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit L, # 2 Exhibit M, # 3 Exhibit N, # 4 Exhibit O, # 5 Exhibit P, # 6 Exhibit Q, # 7 Exhibit R)(Noona, Stephen)
EXHIBIT R
1
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
3
Norfolk Division
4
5
6
7
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
8
9
10
Plaintiff,
v.
AOL INC., et al.,
11
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 2:11cv512
12
13
14
15
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
16
Norfolk, Virginia
17
September 18, 2012
18
Hearing on Motions
19
20
21
22
Before:
23
THE HONORABLE F. BRADFORD STILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
24
25
GLORIA S. SMITH, OFFICIAL REPORTER
36
1
taking of depositions.
You've heard me on this, or at least
2
some of your colleagues have heard me on this, and I was a bit
3
intemperate on it in a telephone conference, where you were
4
arguing about the taking of depositions and how many hours
5
would be allocated to the taking of depositions of experts.
6
And I came to find out at that time -- this is last week,
7
now -- that you were taking depositions outside the deadlines
8
established in the Rule 16(b) order, and I explained to you
9
what the order says quite clearly, and that is, you shall not
10
violate the deadline unless you get an agreed order and the
11
court is persuaded to enter it.
12
Now, you did submit an order to that effect, it was
13
agreed, and I entered it, giving you the opportunity to take
14
some depositions out of time.
15
about other depositions being taken out of time, and no one
16
has approved them.
17
18
19
20
21
MR. SHERWOOD:
Your Honor.
But now here you are talking
No, they are not other depositions,
I'm sorry if I --
THE COURT:
You said that you are taking the
depositions of Culliss and Ortega, didn't you?
MR. SHERWOOD:
Right, but I think that is part of
22
the agreed order that the court has seen.
23
about is the sequencing of these things.
24
25
THE COURT:
All right.
What I'm talking
What else have you got,
because, frankly, I understand your argument.
I'm afraid I
GLORIA S. SMITH, OFFICIAL REPORTER
37
1
don't agree with it, and I need to rule.
2
argument and the good intentions of the argument, but this
3
prior art was disclosed 60 days before the discovery cutoff
4
date for fact discovery, which distinguishes it in the court's
5
mind from what the court understands the ruling is in Woodrow
6
Woods and Marine Systems.
7
I appreciate the
The court notes that the defendant had 60 days
8
within -- I'm sorry -- the plaintiff had 60 days within which
9
to respond to deal with these disclosures, which appear to be
10
timely under Rule 26(e), which is the only standard the court
11
has available to apply in these circumstances, and the court
12
believes that since no action was taken within that 60 days,
13
and we are here today, that the prejudice that is being argued
14
is insubstantial.
15
problem, I would have expected the motion within a week of the
16
disclosure of this prior art.
17
I have to say that if this were truly a
The defendant Google's position seems to be that
18
they developed a further understanding of the plaintiff's
19
position and felt obliged to supplement with this prior art.
20
What they knew and what they understood were two different
21
things, and I believe that Google here developed an
22
understanding with respect to the necessity of disclosing the
23
prior art, they did so in a timely manner under Rule 26(e),
24
that the case that was cited from the Federal Circuit is
25
distinguishable because of the significant amount of time that
GLORIA S. SMITH, OFFICIAL REPORTER
38
1
was available, and that any argument as to prejudice has been
2
undercut because discovery has been taken with respect to the
3
prior art, and there was no immediate reaction to deal with
4
the late disclosure.
5
We are well past the 60-day deadline for -- the
6
60-day period within which this prior art was disclosed.
7
Accordingly, the motion for sanctions is denied.
8
9
Now, I'll be happy to hear from Google with respect
to the documents issues.
10
MR. PERLSON:
Your Honor, I'm happy to report that
11
we have resolved at least one of the issues from the motion to
12
compel.
13
THE COURT:
14
MR. PERLSON:
15
Which one is that?
That is the issue of the Lang
documents.
16
THE COURT:
The Lang documents?
17
MR. PERLSON:
18
THE COURT:
Yes.
Let me see which one of those -- okay.
19
That's the complete set of responsive documents from Andrew K.
20
Lang.
21
MR. PERLSON:
22
THE COURT:
23
Yes.
One of the two claimed inventors of the
patents-in-suit.
24
MR. PERLSON:
25
THE COURT:
Yes.
And you agreed to do what?
GLORIA S. SMITH, OFFICIAL REPORTER
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?