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

Filing 608

Response to 115 MOTION to Seal I/P Engine, Inc.'s Motion to Seal Exhibits 15, 16, 17, 18, and 21 of IP Engine's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Compel Defendant Google, Inc.'s Custodial Document Production, 125 MOTION to Seal Motion to Seal I/P Engine's Opposition to Google and IAC's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Supplement its Infringement Contentions Along with Exhibits 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, and 22 in Support filed by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 15 (Lesser Redacted), # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 16 (Lesser Redacted), # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 17 (Lesser Redacted), # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 18 (Unredacted, Public Form), # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 21 (Lesser Redacted), # 6 Exhibit ECF 125 (Lesser Redacted), # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 11 (Lesser Redacted), # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 12 (Lesser Redacted), # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 15 (Lesser Redacted), # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 22 (Lesser Redacted))(Schultz, Donald)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NORFOLK DIVISION ) FP ENGINE, INC., Plaintiff, v. AOL, INC. et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512 MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBITS 15, 16, 17, 18 AND 21 OF FP ENGINE'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.'S CUSTODIAL DOCUMENT PRODUCTION EXHIBIT 21 FILED UNDER SEAL Quinn emanuel trial lawyers I san Irani= 50 California Street. 22nd Hoot -, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 I TEL: (415) 875-6600 FAX: (415) 875-6700 April 10, 2012 Charles Monterio MonterioC@dicksteinshapiro.com CONFIDENTIAL: OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY Re: I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al. Dear Charles: I write to confirm our April 9 meet and confer and the discovery issues addressed on that call. ESI Agreement We discussed the current draft of the ESI Agreement. You stated that the only language still in dispute was Google's proposed ESI agreement language excluding emails that were neither sent nor received. We explained that, contrary to your belief, including these emails would create an unreasonable burden for review. You stated that Plaintiff was interested in receiving onl intentionally saved draft emails, rather than Accordingly, we again ask that Plaintiff agree to Google's proposed language, as set out in my letter of April 6, 2012. Search Terms We also discussed Google's proposal that Plaintiff withdraw the term "Ads Quality" from the quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, lip LOS ANGELES I 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 1 TEL (213) 443-3000 FAX (213)443-3100 NEW YORK 151 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 I TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100 SILICON VALLEY 1555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores. California 94065-2139 I TEL (650) 801-5000 FAX (650) 801-5100 CHICAGO 1500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 1 TEL (312) 705-7400 FAX (312) 705-7401 WASHINGTON, DC 11299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. Suitc 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 I TEL (202) 538-8000 FAX (202) 538-8100 LONDON I 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom [TEL +44(0) 20 7653 2000 FAX +44(0) 20 7653 2100 TOKYO INBE Hibiya Building, 25F, 1-1-7. Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku. Tokyo 100-0011, Japan 1 TEL +81 3 5510 1711 FAX +81 3 5510 1712 MANNHEIM IMollstraBe 42, 68165 Mannheim, Germany 1 TEL +49(0) 621 43298 6000 FAx +49(0) 621 43298 6100 moscow1 Voentorg Building, 3rd Floor. 10 Vozdvizhenka Street, Moscow 125009. Russia I TEL +7 495 797 3666 FAX +7 495 797 3667 search term list, because the term is overly broad and resulted in an unreasonable number of hits when run across the full collection. You proposed that the term be modified to the following: Google agrees to your proposed modification. We also explained that Google's vendor has had difficulty running the terms that include the patent numbers, as outlined in my letter of April 6. They informed us yesterday that they should be able to update us today on this issue. Dates of Production As discussed during our meet and confer, excluding any documents related to the "unsent emails" issue and the overbroad "Ads Quality" search term, Google provided an estimated completion date for custodial production by June 15, 2012. We explained that this date was an estimate rather than a firm deadline, as it assumes that no substantial issues arise during the review. We further noted that Plaintiff s proposed date of April 30, 2012 for the completion of its custodial document production was also an estimated date, rather than a firm date. Google indicated, as previously discussed in our meet and confers and correspondence, that it would prioritize the production of documents from those custodians listed in its initial disclosures. Google has further committed to rolling custodial productions to Plaintiff, rather than producing all documents at the end of the review. You objected to the June 15 date, and stated that you would move to compel immediately. You stated that you would move to compel production of documents, which we had agreed to produce as you acknowledged. You stated that you would move in the alternative to compel production by a date certain, such as April 30, 2012. We explained that the search across the full custodial collection (excludin the "Ads Quali " term and the unsent emails) resulted in We explained that Google was committing significant resources to this process, and was working to complete the review as quickly as feasible. We asked how you would suggest that Google review, process, and produce this many documents in a shorter time frame. You had no proposal. You asked why Google had not begun reviewing and producing emails sooner, before the search term list was finalized. However, we have made it clear throughout the course of this litigation that Google was only willing to process and review custodial documents one time. Any other process would have been inefficient; for example, de-duplication across the entire custodial collection would have been more difficult. In addition, your position that you expected otherwise is disingenuous given the fact that, as recently as our March 1 meet and confer, you were apparently under the impression that the parties had agreed not to produce emails. Obviously the majority of these custodial documents are email families. 2

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?