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

Filing 89

Declaration re 88 Memorandum in Support of Margaret Kammerud in Support of Google's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Conception, Reduction-to-Practice, and Priority Date Infomation for the Patents-in-Suit by Google, Inc.. (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)(Noona, Stephen)

EXHIBIT J

Joshua Sohn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Brothers, Kenneth [[e-mail]]
Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:33 AM
Margaret P. Kammerud; Monterio, Charles; zz-IPEngine
Noona, Stephen E.; QE-IP Engine
RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.

Meg:
Our investigation is protected by work product doctrine, and the attorney-client and common
interest privileges. We intend to preserve those privileges, and will not divulge the
privileged details of our investigation without Defendants' consent to our conditions.
The bottom line is that, contrary to Mr. Blias' understanding and representations, Mr. Kosak
never had possession of the contents of the two CD's referenced in Mr. Blias' letter.
Instead, Mr. Kosak was sent certain Lycos files that were totally unrelated to this matter.
The contents of the two CD's in question were later located on Lycos' servers and were never
sent to Mr. Kosak. We had believed that Lycos would produce the contents of those CD's in
response to the subpoena from Google. When we received from Google the January 10 letter and
then later received from Google the Lycos pass-through productions, we realized that Lycos
had not produced those documents. We thereafter have been coordinating with Lycos regarding
the production of those documents, which contain Lycos confidential information, and recently
received Lycos's permission to produce them to Defendants. We expect that they will be made
available soon.
We reiterate our offer to provide full details of our investigation once Defendants accept
our conditions.
Ken
-----Original Message----From: Margaret P. Kammerud [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 1:09 PM
To: Brothers, Kenneth; Monterio, Charles; zz-IPEngine
Cc: Noona, Stephen E.; QE-IP Engine
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.
Ken,
Please identify the incorrect assumptions and statements in the Lycos letter you refer to in
your email. We fail to see how there can be a any legitimate privilege issue in connection
with you doing so.
Additionally, please confirm that Plaintiff has produced the contents of the CD identified in
the Lycos letter, and if not, explain why.
Regards,
Meg
-----Original Message----From: Brothers, Kenneth [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 9:58 AM
To: Margaret P. Kammerud; Monterio, Charles; zz-IPEngine
Cc: Noona, Stephen E.; QE-IP Engine
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.
1

Meg:
We have conducted a detailed investigation, and stand by our prior statements. The Lycos
letter contains several incorrect assumptions and statements. We are willing to share the
details of our investigation with you on the conditions that I have set forth, which are both
necessary and reasonable.
Ken
-----Original Message----From: Margaret P. Kammerud [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:53 PM
To: Brothers, Kenneth; Monterio, Charles; zz-IPEngine
Cc: Noona, Stephen E.; QE-IP Engine
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.
Ken,
During our meet and confer call on December 16, 2011, you stated that Mr. Kosak did not
possess any relevant documents for production. You said that Lycos would produce his
documents. On January 10, 2012, Lycos sent us a letter stating: "although Lycos possesses
certain electronic file folders containing imaged documents of Don Kosak himself that it
believes includes responsive documents, Lycos does not possess the technical capability to
open those folders and therefore has been unable to access or view their contents for
purposes of production. Nonetheless, per the request of plaintiff's counsel and Mr. Kosak
himself, Lycos provided Mr. Kosak with complete copies of those folders on a CD a few months
ago and believes he was able to access them." We are entitled to an explanation of this
inconsistency -- an explanation you represented you would give us on our meet and confer.
Please provide this explanation. Your requested "conditions" are unnecessary and
inappropriate.
Regards,
Meg
-----Original Message----From: Brothers, Kenneth [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 4:23 PM
To: Margaret P. Kammerud; Monterio, Charles; zz-IPEngine
Cc: Noona, Stephen E.; QE-IP Engine
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.
Meg:
We are finalizing our summary of our investigation, which has included multiple privileged
interviews and reviews of privileged documents. We are willing to provide Google's counsel
with a letter describing our investigation, owhich is consistent with our earlier
representations, on the following conditions: (1) Google agrees in writing that our
disclosure of this writing is in no way a waiver of any privilege; or (2) Google shall not
seek discovery of any privileged communications relating to this investigation. Once we
receive your agreement, we will provide our written narrative to you.
Ken
________________________________________
From: Margaret P. Kammerud [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:15 PM
To: Monterio, Charles; zz-IPEngine
Cc: Noona, Stephen E.; QE-IP Engine
2

Subject: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.
Dear Charles,
In your January 24, 2011 letter, you stated that I/P Engine is investigating the statements
Lycos made in its January 10, 2012 production letter that it provided to Mr. Kosak documents
on a CD "per the request of plaintiff's counsel and Mr. Kosak himself." Please promptly
provide explain the inconsistency with this statement from counsel for Lycos and Plaintiff's
previous representations.
Regards,
Meg
Margaret P. Kammerud
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-875-6316 Direct
415.875.6600 Main Office Number
415.875.6700 FAX
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
www.quinnemanuel.com<http://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.

Confidentiality Statement
This e-mail 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 e-mail 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 e-mail 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

3

4