I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Declaration re 978 MOTION for Order to Show Cause UNDER RULE 37 FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AUGUST 13, 2013 ORDER OF CHARLES J. MONTERIO, JR. by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Sherwood, Jeffrey)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
AOL, INC. et al.,
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512
DECLARATION OF CHARLES J. MONTERIO, JR.
IN SUPPORT OF I/P ENGINE’S MOTION FOR DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE
I, Charles J. Monterio, Jr., declare as follows:
I am an attorney with the law firm of Dickstein Shapiro LLP, 1825 Eye Street
N.W., Washington, DC 20006 and am counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) in the
In its August 13, 2013 Order, this Court ordered the parties to “produce any
documents relevant for determining whether New AdWords is no more than a colorable variation
of the adjudicated product” by August 25, 2013.
On August 25, 2013, in compliance with the August 13 Order, I/P Engine
produced the documents it could find on Google’s website that describe the current AdWords
system. None of those documents indicates any relevant change to the AdWords system.
Defendant Google, the party in control of the AdWords system and with sole
custody of all relevant non-public documents, produced seventeen (17) total documents.
Those 17 documents do not appear to include much of the materials that Google
historically created when it made changes to its AdWords system. Based on our review of
Google’s document productions before trial, Google carefully studies and analyzes all changes it
makes to its systems before implementation. The 17 produced documents included no custodial
documents that describe or relate to any alleged change.
At a meet and confer conference on August 27, 2013, I/P Engine raised its
concerns as to Google’s production because this is the same discovery tactic that Google
employed before trial. Google ultimately took 6 months to produce its custodial documents (i.e.,
6 months transpired between when I/P Engine served its document requests and when Google
produced its documents).
As of the time of this filing, Google has produced no emails or other custodial
The communications between Google personnel, especially its engineers,
describing Google’s efforts regarding the relevant changes serve as a helpful tool in mapping out
what changes Google actually implemented, which provides a roadmap to review the source
Dated: August 29, 2013
By: ___/s/ Charles J. Monterio, Jr. ______
Charles J. Monterio Jr.
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 420-2200
Facsimile: (202) 420-2201
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this 29th day of August 2013 I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to the following:
Stephen Edward Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W Main St, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510 firstname.lastname@example.org
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111
Robert L. Burns
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Two
11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190
Cortney S. Alexander
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 94111
/s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood
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?