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

Filing 989

Declaration re 988 Memorandum in Support, (Declaration of Stephen E. Noona in Support of Defendants Motion To Strike Plaintiffs Reply In Support Of Motion To Show Cause) by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Noona, Stephen)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 1 Cc: Subject: Monterio, Charles [MonterioC@dicksteinshapiro.com] Friday, September 13, 2013 8:35 AM David Perlson; Donald C. Schultz (dschultz@cwm-law.com); W. Ryan Snow (wrsnow@cwmlaw.com); zz-IPEngine QE-IP Engine; Stephen E. Noona (senoona@kaufcan.com) RE: I/P Engine: Reply Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Completed From: Sent: To: David,    I/P Engine’s proposal to not file a reply was coupled with its request for a prompt hearing where it could reply verbally  to Defendants’ Opposition directly to the Court.  The point of this offer was to facilitate a quick judicial resolution of the  issues either last week or early this week.  That did not happen.  As the Court has not yet set a hearing, and because  time is very short for expert witness reports, I/P Engine filed its reply in its ongoing effort to achieve a prompt  resolution.  I/P Engine is not obligated to withdraw its reply nor does it intend to do so.     Charles   (202) 420‐5167    Confidentiality Statement This email message, including any attachments, is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain privileged and/or confidential material. If you are not the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, printing, copying, or other dissemination of this email message is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply email message or notify our email administrator at postmaster@dicksteinshapiro.com and permanently delete and destroy the original message and any and all copies, including printouts and electronic copies on any computer system. Dickstein Shapiro LLP www.DicksteinShapiro.com From: David Perlson [mailto:davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:53 PM To: Donald C. Schultz (dschultz@cwm-law.com); W. Ryan Snow (wrsnow@cwm-law.com); zz-IPEngine Cc: QE-IP Engine; Stephen E. Noona (senoona@kaufcan.com) Subject: I/P Engine: Reply   Counsel,    We are in receipt of Plaintiff’s Reply in support of to I/P Engine’s Motion to Show Cause.  In its motion to expedite  resolution of its motion, Plaintiff requested that Defendants respond to I/P Engine’s Motion to Show Cause on or before  September 4, 2013.  As part of this request, I/P Engine said it would “waive its right to reply to Defendants’ response”  for this schedule.  Defendants agreed to this and filed their response in Plaintiff’s requested timeframe.  Plaintiff violates  its own commitment represented to the Court in filing its Reply.      Please confirm you will withdraw your Reply by 10 am tomorrow.  Defendants reserve all rights from Plaintiff’s improper  filing.      David Perlson Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Direct: (415) 875-6344 Main Phone: (415) 875-6600 Main Fax: (415) 875-6700 E-mail: davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com Web: www.quinnemanuel.com 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.     

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?