13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel

7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel

1/217

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

SKYHOOK WIRELESS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOOGLE INC.,

Defendant.

))

))

))

))

))

))

)

)

Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ

and

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-10153-RWZ

AFFIDAVIT OF AZRA M. HADZIMEHMEDOVIC IN SUPPORT OF SKYHOOK

WIRELESS, INC.S MOTION TO COMPEL GOOGLE INC. TO PRODUCE MR.

PATRICK BRADY FOR A DEPOSITION AND TO PRODUCE CERTAIN

DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO SKYHOOKS DOCUMENT REQUESTS

Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196 Filed 07/01/13 Page 1 of 7


2/217

2

I, Azra M. Hadzimehmedovic, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney at the law firm of Tensegrity Law Group LLP, counsel of recordfor Skyhook Wireless, Inc. (Skyhook) in the above-captioned matter. I am an attorney in good

standing licensed to practice in the State of California and the District of Columbia and admitted

to practice before this Court pro hac vice in the above-captioned matter. I submit this

declaration in support of Skyhooks Motion to Compel Google Inc. To Produce Mr. Patrick

Brady for a Deposition and To Produce Certain Documents Responsive to Skyhooks Document

Requests. I am personally familiar with the facts stated herein, and, if called as a witness, could

testify competently hereto.

2. An electronic search of Googles production, using Patrick Brady as a custodianin the patent infringement case, yields 6648 documents. Mr. Bradys corporate deposition in

Skyhooks state law case of tortious interference took place on November 4-5, 2011, and his

individual deposition took place on January 31, 2012. Mr. Bradys documents, naming him as a

custodian in the federal patent infringement case, were produced on March 29, 2012.

3. I met and conferred with Googles counsel Sanjeet Dutta regarding the TracBeamlitigation document request at least twice telephonically and I sent Googles counsel additional

written correspondence on this issue. Skyhooks request for production of documents Google

has produced in the TracBeam litigation is as follows: All Documents or Things produced or

made available for inspection in TracBeam, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 6:13-cv-00093,

including without limitation depositions and discovery responses. Ex. 6 to this Affidavit at 120.

In the two telephonic discussions with Mr. Dutta, I explained that Skyhook was particularly

interested in Googles depositions and discovery responses from that litigation (as Skyhooks

request specifically stated in the including clause). I explained Skyhooks belief that the



3/217

3

burden of turning over those limited, specific documents could not be significant. Litigation

teams usually keep these files in folders that are easily accessible and well organized. I also

explained the apparent overlap in the accused products between this case and TracBeams

allegations against Google in that case, both of which involve Googles location-based products

and services. I also stressed that there may be overlapping damages issues, all of which

warranted production of corporate and individual depositions of all witnesses. Finally, I also

underscored Skyhooks continued concern with Googles unwillingness to provide complete

discovery into the roles of Googles employees most knowledgeable about particular specific

areas identified in Skyhooks interrogatories and corporate topics. In particular, I reminded Mr.

Dutta about Skyhooks belief that Google has not provided sufficient discovery into its

marketing, distribution and sales of the accused products, including the identification of persons

involved in those activities and descriptions of their roles. After Google confirmed that it would

produce some depositions from TracBeam litigation, I also requested that Google identify

individuals whose depositions it was not willing to produce to Skyhook and the roles of those

individuals. Google refused to provide identity of witnesses whose corporate or individual

depositions Google was withholding and refused to provide discovery responses from the

TracBeam litigation.

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Google Inc.s Responsesto Skyhooks First Set of Interrogatories, dated January 6, 2011.

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of email exchange betweenA. Hadzimehmedovic (counsel for Skyhook), T. Lundin (counsel for Google) re: Skyhook v.

Google: Lars Fjeldsoe-Nielsons Responses and Objections and other discovery Issues, dated

between June 7, 2013 and June 18, 2013.



4/217

4

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of email exchange betweenA. Hadzimehmedovic (counsel for Skyhook) and S. Dutta and T. Lundin (counsel for Google) re:

Skyhook v. Google: Various Discovery Issues, dated between June 18, 2013 and June 24, 2013

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of an email from A.Hadzimehmedovic to W. Abrams re: Skyhook/Google: Brin Deposition Notice, dated February 6,

2013.

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of email exchange betweenA. Hadzimehmedovic (counsel for Skyhook), W. Abrams and T. Lundin (counsel for Google) re:

Skyhook v. Google Nos. 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ, dated between February 15, 2013 and March 6,

2013.

9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Googles Objections andResponses to Skyhooks Third Set of Requests for Production (Nos. 176-316), dated May 2,

2013.

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of email exchange betweenA. Hadzimehmedovic (counsel for Skyhook) and T. Lundin and S. Dutta (counsel for Google) re:

Skyhook v. Google: ESI and Mr. Brins Documents, dated between May 24, 2013 and June 3,

2013.

11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of a screenshot of aphotograph of Sergey Brin with Steve Jobs at the 2008 Macworld Conference & Expo

(http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Sergey+Brin/Steve+Jobs+Delivers+Keynote+Speech+Macworl

d/SxICtx3779p).

12. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of email exchange betweenA. Hadzimehmedovic (counsel for Skyhook) and W. Abrams and T. Lundin (counsel for Google)



5/217

5

re: Skyhook v. Google Nos. 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ, dated between February 15, 2013 and

March 6, 2013.

13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of email exchangebetween S. Dutta (counsel for Google) and A. Hadzimehmedovic (counsel for Skyhook) re:

Skyhook v. Google: ESI Terms, dated between June 18, 2013 and June 27, 2013.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this

affidavit is executed on July 1, 2013 at McLean, VA.

Dated: July 1, 2013 Respectfully submitted:

/s/ Azra M. Hadzimehmedovic

Matthew D. Powers (pro hac vice)

Steven S. Cherensky (pro hac vice)Paul T. Ehrlich (pro hac vice)

William P. Nelson (pro hac vice)Azra M. Hadzimehmedovic (pro hac vice)

Aaron M. Nathan (pro hac vice)

TENSEGRITY LAW GROUP LLP555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 360Redwood Shores, CA 94065

Phone: (650) 802-6000Fax: (650) 802-6001

Email:[email protected]

[email protected]@tensegritylawgroup.com

[email protected]@tensegritylawgroup.com

[email protected]

Thomas F. Maffei (BBO 313220)Douglas R. Tillberg (BBO 661573)

GRIESINGER, TIGHE & MAFFEI, LLP176 Federal Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02110(617) 542-9900



6/217


7/217

7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to be served via the

ECF system of the District of Massachusetts this 1st day of July, 2013, on all counsel of record.

/s/ Azra M. Hadzimehmedovic

Azra M. Hadzimehmedovic



8/217

EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 1 of 11


9/217

A/73614186.2 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

SKYHOOK WIRELESS, INC.,

Plaintiff andCounterclaim-Defendant,

v.

GOOGLE INC.,

Defendant and

Counterclaimant.

))

)))

)

)

))

)

))

Case No. 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ

GOOGLE INC.S RESPONSES TO SKYHOOK, INCS FIRST SET OFINTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, Defendant Google Inc.

(Google) responds and objects to Plaintiff Skyhook, Inc.s (Skyhook) First Set of

Interrogatories (Interrogatories) as follows:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1. These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Eachresponse is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety and

admissibility, and to any and all other objections on any grounds that would require the exclusion

of any statements contained in these responses if such interrogatory response were asked of, or

statements contained in the response were made by, a witness present and testifying in court, all

of which objections and grounds are expressly reserved and may be interposed at the time of

trial.

2. Discovery in this matter is ongoing. Accordingly, the following responses

are given without prejudice to Googles right to produce evidence of any subsequently

discovered fact or facts that it may later recall or discover. Google further reserves the right to



10/217

A/73614186.2 2

change, amend, or supplement any or all of the matters contained in these responses as additional

facts are ascertained, analyses are made, research is completed, and contentions are made.

3. Objections to the Interrogatories are made on an individual basis below.

Googles response to each interrogatory is submitted without prejudice to, and without in any

way waiving, the General Objections listed here, but not expressly set forth in that response. The

assertion of any objection to an interrogatory in any response below is neither intended as, nor

shall in any way be deemed, a waiver of Googles right to assert that or any other objection at a

later date.

4. No incidental or implied admissions are intended by these responses. That

Google has answered or objected to any interrogatory should not be taken as an admission that

Google accepts or admits the existence of any facts set forth or assumed by such interrogatory.

That Google has answered part or all of any interrogatory is not intended to be, and shall not be

construed to be, a waiver by Google of any part of any objection to any interrogatory.

5. Google objects to the Interrogatories (which include the Definitions and

Instructions that proceed them) and to each Interrogatory to the extent that they are vague,

ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, or oppressive, or seek information that is neither

relevant to the issues in this case nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

6. Google objects to the Interrogatories and to each Interrogatory on the

ground and to the extent that they purport to seek information protected by the work-product

doctrine, attorney-client privilege or any other privilege or restriction on discovery. To the

extent that any interrogatory is so vague or ambiguous that it may be interpreted to call for

privileged or protected information, Google interprets each such request not to call for any

privileged or protected information.

7. Google objects to the Interrogatories and to each Interrogatory to the

extent they seek information in the possession, custody, or control of individuals or entities other



11/217

A/73614186.2 3

than Google on the grounds they are unduly burdensome and oppressive, and such information is

equally available to Skyhook.


extent that they seek information already within Skyhooks possession, custody, or control on the

grounds that they are duplicative, unduly burdensome, and oppressive, and such information is

equally available to Skyhook.


extent they purport to impose on Google obligations that differ from or exceed those required by

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules, or the Courts orders. Google will not

comply with any purported obligation not imposed by law.


extent they contain discrete subparts in violation of LR 26.1(c). Skyhooks Interrogatories

contains no fewer than 4 interrogatories and discrete subparts.


extent they call for information related to Googles business activities outside the United States.

Skyhooks rights under the patents-in-suit, if any, are limited to the United States.


extent they incorporate or reference Skyhooks overbroad, vague and ambiguous definition of

Google Location and Google Wi-Fi Location Database.


extent they seek the disclosure of information that constitutes Googles trade secrets or

confidential information. Information constituting Googles trade secrets or confidential

information will be produced only after entry of a protective order satisfactory to Google and

only if directly relevant to disputed allegations or contentions in the pending action.


extent they purport to seek discovery regarding claims not identified or asserted by Skyhook.

Google will respond only with regard to the asserted claims.



12/217

A/73614186.2 4

15. The foregoing general objections shall be applicable to and included in

Googles responses to each and every one of Skyhooks interrogatories, whether or not

specifically raised below. The objections set forth below are not a waiver, in whole or in part, of

any of the foregoing general objections.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES

Subject to the foregoing General Objections, and pursuant to the agreement of the parties,

Google responds to each separate interrogatory as follows:

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Identify the five individuals, at least three of whom are present employees, whom You

believe to be the most knowledgeable regarding each of the following topics: (a) the research and

development of Google Location; (b) the structure, operation, and function of Google Location;

and (c) sales and marketing in the United States of Google Location, and describe each

individual's knowledge and the bases for that knowledge.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Google objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, particularly with regard to

the phrases research and development of Google Location, and sales and marketing in the

United States of Google Location. Google further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

contains multiple subparts in violation of LR 26.1(c). Google objects to this request to the extent

that it calls for production of confidential or proprietary information, trade secrets, future

marketing, and business plans. Google objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to

require Google to speculate. Google objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is redundant of

Googles initial disclosures.



13/217

A/73614186.2 5

Google objects to this interrogatory to the extent it calls for the indentification of an

arbitrary and irrelevant number of individuals. Google will identify individuals who are

reasonably likely to have significant, relevant information.

Google objects to this interrogatory as premature and unduly burdensome. At this state

of the case, it is impossible to identify with precision persons who do or do not have information

relevant to the parties claims and defenses. Skyhook has not identified the specific accused

insturmentality, identified the asserted claims, nor articulated its damages theory, and has yet to

produce even a single document. Google reserves the right to supplement its response to this

interrogatory as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

Response to Interrogatory No. 1(a) (research and development witnesses):

Subject to its objections, and without waiving any objections, Google identifies the

following persons whom Google believes are likely to have discoverable information regarding

the research and development of Google Location:

Zhengrong Ji, knowledge of research and development of Google Location, basedon personal knowledge derived from work on Google Location;

Arunesh Mishra, knowledge of research and development of Google Location,based on personal knowledge derived from work on Google Location;

Phil Gossett, knowledge of research and development of Google Location, basedon personal knowledge derived from work on Google Location; and

Tsuwei Chen, knowledge of research and development of Google Location, basedon personal knowledge derived from work on Google Location.

Google reserves the right to supplement its response to this interrogatory as provided by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

Response to Interrogatory No. 1(b) (structure, operation, and function witnesses):



the structure, operation, and function of Google Location:



14/217

A/73614186.2 6

Zhengrong Ji, knowledge of the structure, operation, and function of GoogleLocation, based on personal knowledge derived from work on Google Location;

Arunesh Mishra, knowledge of the structure, operation, and function of GoogleLocation, based on personal knowledge derived from work on Google Location;

Ken Norton, knowledge of the structure, operation, and function of GoogleLocation, based on personal knowledge derived from work on Google Location;

Tsuwei Chen, knowledge of the structure, operation, and function of GoogleLocation, based on personal knowledge derived from work on Google Location; and

Marc Stogaitis, knowledge of the structure, operation, and function of GoogleLocation, based on personal knowledge derived from work on Google Location.



Response to Interrogatory No. 1(c) (sales and marketing witnesses):



sales and marketing in the United States of Google Location:

Patrick Brady, knowledge of sales and marketing in the United States of GoogleLocation, based on personal knowledge derived from work on Google Location; and

Ken Norton, knowledge of sales and marketing in the United States of GoogleLocation, based on personal knowledge derived from work on Google Location.



INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Set Forth The Complete Basis For Your allegations that You have not willfully infringed

the Patents-in-Suit, including those allegations made in the Answer.



15/217

A/73614186.2 7

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Google objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Google objects to this

interrogatory to the extent that it calls for information protected by the attorney-client and/or

work product privileges.

Gooogle objects to this interrogatory as premature. To date, Skyhook has not disclosed

any basis whatsoever for any claim that Google has willfully infringed any of the Patents-in-Suit.

Subject to its objections, and without waiving any objections, Google states that Skyhook

has not identifed any evidence that Skyhook put Google on notice of any alleged infringement.

Dated: January 6, 2011 Google Inc.,

By its attorneys,

/s/ Susan Baker Manning

Jonathan M. Albano, BBO #013850

[email protected]

BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLPOne Federal Street

Boston, MA 02110-1726, U.S.A.617.951.8000



16/217

A/73614186.2

William F. Abrams (admitted pro hac vice)[email protected]

BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP

1900 University Avenue

East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2223650.849.4400

Robert C. Bertin (admitted pro hac vice)[email protected]

Susan Baker Manning (admitted pro hac vice)

[email protected] McCUTCHEN LLP

2020 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006-1806

202.373.6000



17/217

VERIFICATION OF INTERROGATORY RESPONSES

I, John LaBane, declare under penalty of perjury that I am Litigation Counsel for GoogleInc. and am authorized to make this Verification on its behalf. I have read Google Inc.'sResponses To Skyhook Inc.'s First Set Oflnterrogatories dated January 6, 2011, know its

. contents, and, to the best ofmy knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonableinquiry, the response is true and accurate as of the time submitted on January 6, 2011. Signedthis 6th day of January, 2011 in Mountain View, CA.



18/217

A/73614186.2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 6, 2011, I served the forgoing Responses To Skyhook Inc.s

First Set Of Interrogatories via email to the following:

Thomas F. Maffei

Griesinger, Tighe & Maffei, LLP

Suite 400176 Federal Street

Boston, MA 02110

Telephone: 617-542-9900

Facsimile: [email protected]

John C. Hueston

Irell & Manella

1800 Avenue of the StarsSuite 900

Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276

Telephone: 310-277-1010

[email protected]

Douglas R. Tillberg

Griesinger, Tighe & Maffei, LLP

Suite 400176 Federal Street

Boston, MA 02110

Telephone: 617-542-9900Facsimile: 617-542-0900

[email protected]

Samuel K. Lu

Irell & Manella LLP

1800 Avenue of the StarsSuite 900

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Telephone: [email protected]

Morgan Chu

Irell & Manella, LLP1800 Avenue of the Stars

Suite 900Los Angeles, CA 90067

Telephone: 310-277-1010

[email protected]

/s/ Audrey Lo

[email protected]



19/217

EXHIBIT 2



20/217

Tuesday,June18,20133:32:53PMPacificDaylightTime

Page1o

Subject: RE:Skyhookv.Google:LarsFjeldsoe-Nielsen'sResponsesandObjectionsandotherdiscovery

issues

Date: Tuesday,June18,20133:32:05PMPacificDaylightTime

From: Lundin,Tom

To: AzraHadzimehmedovic,[email protected],Google/SkyhookK&S,Abrams,

William,Pada,Roxane

Azra Thanks for your message. I am in depositions tomorrow, but Sanj is available any time duringthe range that you suggest. Please send a meeting notice to Sanj with dial-in information.Thanks.Regards,Tom Lundin Jr.King & Spalding LLP

1180 Peachtree St. NEAtlanta, GA 30309-3521404-572-2808Fax: [email protected]

From: Azra Hadzimehmedovic [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:15 PM

To: Lundin, Tom; [email protected]; Google/Skyhook K&S; Abrams, William; Pada, Roxane

Cc: Skyhook_Service

Subject: Re: Skyhook v. Google: Lars Fjeldsoe-Nielsen's Responses and Objections and other discovery issues

Tom,Ihavetriedtoreschedulemyothercommitmentssothatwecoulddoacallat4PMtoday,asyouproposed,

butIwasnotabletodoso.Iamavailabletomorrowbetween4and6PMEastern.Pleaseletmeknowifthatworks.

Thankyou.Best,Azra

AZRAHADZIMEHMEDOVIC

TENSEGRITYLAWGROUPLLP555TwinDolphinDrive,Suite360

RedwoodShores,CA94065

650-802-6055(phone)

202-321-3879(mobile)

650-802-6001(fax)



21/217

Page2o

From:,"Lundin,Tom"

Date:Tuesday,June18,201310:58AM

To:AzraHadzimehmedovic,"[email protected]"

,Google/SkyhookK&S,

"Abrams,William","Pada,Roxane"

Cc:Skyhook_Service

Subject:RE:Skyhookv.Google:LarsFjeldsoe-Nielsen'sResponsesandObjectionsandotherdiscoveryissues

Azra Further to my below message, please note the following:Depositions1. In your June 13 email message, Skyhook requested the deposition of Mr. Zelinka on July10. Google accepts that date. Mr. Zelinka will be made available at King & SpaldingsRedwood Shores offices.2. In the same message, you confirmed that Google would not be making Messrs. Stogaitis orWilliams available on the dates (June 17 and 19, respectively) noticed in Skyhooks individualdeposition notices served May 23. That is correct. Google is working to determine dates onwhich Messrs. Stogaitis and Williams will be made available. Further, with respect toSkyhooks individual deposition notices, Google is requesting a meet and confer to discussthe depositions of Messrs. Brady and Lee, each of whom was deposed in the State case Mr. Brady over multiple days. Please be prepared to discuss what testimony Skyhook isseeking from these persons beyond the testimony provided in the State case. Absent somecompelling need that Skyhook can show, Google believes that it is unduly burdensome forSkyhook to attempt to require these persons to appear for deposition again in this action.3. Google is confirming availability to take the Skyhook depositions on the dates that you

offered, with the exeption of Mr. Morgan, and we expect to be able to let you know in the nextday or so. With respect to Mr. Morgan, Skyhooks offered date is unacceptable because it isa day before the close of claim construction fact discovery. Mr. Morgan is an inventor onasserted patents for which the parties need to conduct claim construction fact discovery.Further, Mr. Morgan is a founder of Skyhook and former CEO, with essential knowledge aboutall of the patents in suit. In view of the claim construction fact discovery deadline, Skyhookneeds to make Mr. Morgan available in July.

Bain/Agarwal SubpoenasWe have explained why Google is seeking information such as documents concerning

companies that compete with Skyhook" and "documents defining or describing the market inwhich Skyhook products compete, and the market share of Skyhook or its competitors fromBain and Mr. Agarwal because Bain is an investor in Skyhook and Mr. Agarwal is a Bainemployee and Skyhook board member. As I explained to you in my previous message, thesefacts make Bain and Mr. Agarwal markedly distinct from other third parties, such as Apple,which is the only third party to have responded to a Google document subpoena in thismatter. As to how [Google] would expect a third party to search for and find documents onthese and the other requests, we would expect Bain and Mr. Agarwal to search hard copyfiles, and shared sources and emails for documents responsive to the requests.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


22/217

Page3o

Skyhooks Third RFPsDuring our previous two meet-and-confers on Skyhooks Third RFPs, you requested thatGoogle consider various proposals, confirm various positions, and provide you with finalresponses/positions. Certain of those final responses/positions are as follows:RFP 226: Google produced additional documents last week.

RFP 227: Google has confimed that it has no responsive documents.RFP 203: We believe that Googles ESI search terms would have captured any responsivedocuments, consistent with Googles response. You stated that Googles response wasinconsistent with its response to RFP 27 and requested that Google supplement RFP 27 to beconsistent. Google will do so.RFP 210: We understand that there were two remaining issues: First, based on Skyhooksdefinition of Google Location, whether Google has produced/will produce documentsconcerning Google phones, laptops, and tablets. Google will produce responsivedocuments for devices that Google directly sells that use Google Location Services. Second,with respect to this and other RFPs, whether Google would reconsider its objection toproducing worldwide data. Google maintains its objection to producing worldwide data.

RFPs 254/255: Google has confirmed that there are no non-privileged documents responsiveto these requests.RFP 303: We understand that in this request, Skyhook seeks all discovery in the Tracbeamlitigation. Googles position is unchanged that this request is overbroad, unduly burdensome,seeks irrelevant documents, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence relevant to the claims and defenses in this action, including without limitationbecause the asserted patents in the Tracbeam action are not the same as the assertedSkyhook patents in this action. Nevertheless, Google is willing to produce (1) documentsproduced in Tracbeam that have not been produced in this action and (2) transcripts ofdepositions taken in the Tracbeam action for witnesses who are common to both actions. Tothe extent that Skyhook seeks documents, discovery responses, or deposition transcriptsbeyond that scope, please explain what exactly Skyhook is seeking and why it allegedly is

relevant.RFP 305: Google believes that it has produced any responsive documents.RFP 307: Google has confimed that it does not have responsive documents in itspossession, custody, or control.RFP 311: Google maintains its objection that this request seeks irrelevant documents, andnot calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the claims anddefenses in this action. Further, Google does not believe that it has any information, beyondpublicly available third party reporting, concerning Googles market share for mobileadvertising. Nevertheless, Google is confirming again and agrees to produce any suchdocuments that exist.RFP 312: Following the parties meet-and-confer, and Skyhooks attempt to explain the

relevant of this request, Google maintains its objection that this request seeks irrelevantdocuments, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relevant to theclaims and defenses in this action.RFPs 313/314: Google has confirmed that it does not track or maintain documents andinformation sought in the ordinary course of business. Google does not have responsivedocuments in its possession, custody, or control.RFP 315: Google does not believe that it has any responsive documents. Google isconfirming again and agrees to produce any such documents that exist.ESI issues



23/217

Page4o

1. Skyhooks Proposed New Search Terms (Skyhook II patents) and Proposed AmendedSearch Terms (amending initial federal terms): As I have explained in our previousconferrals, Google has been analyzing Skyhooks proposals. In each instance, Googlebelieves that Skyhooks proposals result in an overly broad and unduly burdensome scope more so for Skyhooks proposed new terms than for Skyhooks proposed amended terms.Google is formulating a counter proposal in each instance that Google believes will result in a

reasonable scope. Google believes that it will be able to provide such a proposal in the nextseveral days.

2. Skyhooks June 3 proposal concerning Sergey Brins documents: We previously advisedyou that, although Skyhook has made no showing of any basis to search Mr. Brinsdocuments, Google searched Mr. Brins emails for Skyhook, Ted Morgan, and MacWorld andthere were no relevant documents. In response, you proposed several additional terms thatSkyhook contended Google should use to search Mr. Brins documents, including (Mike orMichael) w/3 Shean and (Ted or Edward) w/3 Morgan. Google has now searched Mr.Brins emails for the following: Skyhook, Morgan, Shean, and MacWorld each ofwhich is broader than the searches Skyhook requested. No relevant documents resulted from

these searches. Google maintains its objection to any further searching of Mr. Brinsdocuments.Please let us know when you are available to confer concerning the responses to the Bainand Agarwal subpoenas, including dates of production.

Regards,Tom Lundin Jr.King & Spalding LLP1180 Peachtree St. NE

Atlanta, GA 30309-3521

404-572-2808Fax: [email protected]

From: Lundin, Tom

Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:04 PM

To: Azra Hadzimehmedovic; [email protected]; Google/Skyhook K&S; Abrams, William; Pada,

Roxane

Cc: Skyhook_Service

Subject: RE: Skyhook v. Google: Lars Fjeldsoe-Nielsen's Responses and Objections and other discovery issuesAzra Thanks for your message. In the interim between my message and your response, theschedule today became filled up, so we are not available this afternoon. We proposetomorrow afternoon at the same time (4 pm Eastern). Please let us know if that works foryou; if so, Ill circulate a calendar notice with dial-in information.

Further, I will respond in writing to some of your points, and provide you final positions onsome of the outstanding issues and confirm some dates, later this evening, in advance of themeet and confer.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


24/217

Page5o

Regards,Tom Lundin Jr.King & Spalding LLP1180 Peachtree St. NE

Atlanta, GA 30309-3521

404-572-2808Fax: [email protected]


Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 4:33 PM


Cc: Skyhook_Service

Subject: Re: Skyhook v. Google: Lars Fjeldsoe-Nielsen's Responses and Objections and other discovery issuesTom,

WeexpecttocompleteMr.Fjeldsoe-Nielsen'sproductionandupdateprivilegeandredactionlogentriesthatinvolve

himbyMonday,June17.Thus,Mr.Fjeldsoe-Nielsen'sdepositioncanandwillproceedonJuly2unlesstheCourt

respondstoourjointrequestforahearingonJuly2.Aswealreadysaid,wewillgiveyouanalternativedateifand

whentheCourtacceptstheparties'proposeddate.

WithrespecttotheremainderoftheJedRiceprivilegedorredacteddocuments,IhavetoldGoogleweeksagothat

weareworkingtocompletethatre-reviewbyJuly1.Googlehadnoobjectiontothatatthetime,andyoucannot

nowfabricatenewdeadlinesandthreatenamotiontocompelthisMondayifwedonotcompletethatreviewby

Monday.

Further,Google'srhetoricandrequestsstandinsharpcontrastwithwhatititselfisagreeingtodointhiscase,which

makesthemallthatmuchmoreunreasonable.IhaveaskedyoumanytimestoconfirmthatyouwillcompletetherelevantproductionstwoweeksbeforethedepositionsaswearedoingwithMr.Fjeldsoe-Nielsenbutyouhave

notsoagreed.WehavemetandconferredonSkyhook'sThirdSetofDocumentRequestsoverseveralsessions,and

youwerenotpreparedatthelasttelephonicmeetandconfertogiveusGoogle'sfinalpositionsonthoserequests.

YoudidnothaveGoogle'sresponseregardingsearchtermsSkyhookproposednoraboutSkyhook'srequestforMr.

Brin'sdocuments.Youdidnothaveanydepositiondatestoofferbutone.Pleasebepreparedtodiscusseachof

theseissuesonMondayandprovidedepositiondatesfortheremainingdeponents,orprovideawrittenresponsein

advance.Iamavailableat4PMEasternonMonday.Ifthattimeworks,Iwillcirculateameetinginvitationanda

dial-in.

WecandiscussBainCapital'sresponsestoGoogle'ssubpoenaatthesametime.Onthatissue,youareare

misstatingourdiscussion.IhaveaskedyoutoexplainwhyGoogleisseekinginformationfromthirdpartiesthatis

burdensomeandoverbroad,suchas"documentsconcerningcompaniesthatcompetewithSkyhook"or"documentsdefiningordescribingthemarketinwhichSkyhookproductscompete,andthemarketshareofSkyhookorits

competitors."AndthenIpointedoutthatGooglehasservedtheverysamesubpoenaonallthirdparties,andit

appearsnothirdpartyhasgivenyouproductiononyourburdensomeandoverbroadrequestssuchastheonesI

pointedto.Pleasebepreparedtodiscusshowexactlyyouwouldexpectathirdpartytosearchforandfind

documentsontheseandtheotherrequestsonwhichBainCapitalhasofferedatleastthreetimessofartoconfer,

butGooglewasnotpreparedtodoso.

Finally,weareassumingthatthedatesforMr.Zelinka'sandSkyhook'sproposeddepositionsworkforGoogle(given

thattheyarescheduledfordatesMr.ZelinkaandGoogle'scounselareavailable),buttoavoidanydoubt,please

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


25/217

Page6o

confirmbyMondaythatyouhaveacceptedallproposeddates.

Thankyou.

Best,Azra

AZRAHADZIMEHMEDOVIC

TENSEGRITYLAWGROUPLLP

555TwinDolphinDrive,Suite360


650-802-6055(phone)

202-321-3879(mobile)

650-802-6001(fax)

From:,"Lundin,Tom"

Date:Thursday,June13,201311:53PM


,Google/SkyhookK&S,

"Abrams,William","Pada,Roxane"

Cc:Skyhook_Service

Subject:RE:Skyhookv.Google:LarsFjeldsoe-Nielsen'sResponsesandObjections

Azra Im writing to follow up on the below message and Googles multiple, longstanding requeststhat Skyhook produce documents improperly withheld under a claim of privilege and producenew privilege logs for any documents Skyhook continues to withhold.

First, below, Google agreed to depose Mr. Fjeldsoe-Nielsen on July 2 on the conditions thatby June 17, (1) Mr. Fjeldsoe-Nielsen produces documents; and (2) Skyhook completes its re-review of its privilege and redaction logs and produces documents and a new log withsufficient information. We have not received any response confirming that Skyhook will makethose productions by June 17. In addition, the parties requested a status conference/hearingwith the Court on July 2, on the condition that Skyhook provide alternate dates close to July 2for Mr. Fjeldsoe-Nielsens deposition, if the Court agrees to hold the statusconference/hearing on that date. Skyhook has not provided those alternate dates. Pleaseprovide alternate dates for Mr. Fjeldsoe-Nielsen, in the event that the Court agrees to July 2,and please confirm that Mr. Fjeldsoe-Nielsens documents will be produced by June 17.Second, with respect to the privilege log and purportedly privileged documents, Google hasbeen requesting since April 9 that Skyhook produce documents withheld under a claim ofprivilege relating to Jed Rice. The parties exchanged multiple messages and discussed theissue in more than one meet-and-confer. By May 16, Skyhook had promised to re-review all

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


26/217

Page7o

documents withheld on a claim of privilege relating to Mr. Rice, but would not commit to adate certain by which it would produce previously withheld documents or provide newprivilege and redaction logs. Google has made plain, multiple times, and most recently below,that the privileged documents must be produced sufficiently in advance of depositionsbeginning to allow for meaningful review. Skyhook must confirm by tomorrow, June 14, that itwill produce formerly withheld documents and new privilege and redaction logs on June 17, orGoogle will be forced to file a motion to compel on Monday.

Let me know if you have any questions.Regards,Tom Lundin Jr.King & Spalding LLP1180 Peachtree St. NE

Atlanta, GA 30309-3521404-572-2808Fax: 404-572-5134

[email protected]

From: Lundin, Tom

Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 5:10 PM

To: Azra Hadzimehmedovic; [email protected]; Google/Skyhook K&S; Abrams, William; Pada,

Roxane

Cc: Skyhook_Service

Subject: RE: Skyhook v. Google: Lars Fjeldsoe-Nielsen's Responses and ObjectionsAzra

Thanks for your message. We remain available to depose Mr. Fjeldsoe-Nielsen on July 2, butthat date will work only if by June 17(1) Mr. Fjeldsoe-Nielsen produces documents; and(2) Skyhook completes its re-review of its privilege and redaction logs, which Google hasbeen requesting since at least April 9, for at least those entries involving Mr. Fjeldsoe-Nielsen(approximately 60-70 entries), and provides a new log with sufficient information to assess theprivilege claims or produces previously withheld nonprivileged documents, as Skyhook haspromised to provide since May 16.Please let us know this week whether Skyhook and Mr. Fjeldsoe-Nielsen will do the foregoing,

so that we can go forward with his deposition on July 2.Regards,Tom Lundin Jr.King & Spalding LLP1180 Peachtree St. NE

Atlanta, GA 30309-3521404-572-2808Fax: 404-572-5134



27/217

Page8o

[email protected]


Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 11:24 PM

To:[email protected]; Google/Skyhook K&S; Abrams, William; Pada, Roxane; Lundin, Tom

Cc: Skyhook_Service

Subject: Skyhook v. Google: Lars Fjeldsoe-Nielsen's Responses and ObjectionsTom,

PleaseseeattachedMr.Fjeldsoe-Nielsen'sResponsesandObjectionstoGoogle'sSubpoena.Mr.Fjeldsoe-Nielsenis

availableforhisdepositiononJuly2.Pleaseconfirmyouravailabilityearlynextweek.Thankyou.

Best,Azra

AZRAHADZIMEHMEDOVIC




650-802-6055(phone)

202-321-3879(mobile)

650-802-6001(fax)

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


28/217

EXHIBIT 3



29/217

RE: Skyhook v. Google: Various Discovery Issues

Azra-

Apologiesforfailingtoa1achGooglesmessagefromSaturday.Itisa1achednow.

-sanj-

From: Dutta, Sanjeet

Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 10:32 PM

To: 'Azra Hadzimehmedovic'; Skyhook_Service; Douglas Tillberg

Cc: Abrams, William; Pada, Roxane; Google/Skyhook K&S; [email protected]

Subject: RE: Skyhook v. Google: Various Discovery IssuesDearAzra-

WehavediscussedatlengthsinceFebruarythatMr.BrinisnotrelevanttoanyaspectofSkyhookscase.Skyhook

nocedMr.Brinsdeposionwithoutanybasisotherthantoharassoneofthehighestrankingexecuvesand

co-founderofGoogle.GooglerepeatedlyaskedSkyhooktoexplainMr.BrinsrelevancetoSkyhookspatentcase.

Skyhooksresponseprovidednobasis:

WeunderstandthatMr.BrinwasattheMacworldeventinJanuary2008atwhichAppleannouncedthatit

wasusingSkyhook'slocaontechnologyinitsiPhoneandthatMr.BrinhaddiscussionswithApple

representavesaboutthatannouncementandGoogle'sdispleasurewithit.

SkyhookhasneverprovidedanybasisforitsasseronthatMr.Brinhasanyconnecontothiscase.Wepointed

outthatroughly50,000personsa1endedMacworldin2008withMr.Brin.Nevertheless,GooglesearchedMr.

BrinsemailsforthetermsSkyhook,TedMorgan,andMacworld.NodocumentsindicatethatMr.Brinhas

anypersonalknowledgeofanyissuerelevanttotheclaimsordefensesinthisacon.Googlehasconducteda

reasonablesearchfordocumentsfromMr.Brin,determinedthattheresulngdocumentsarenotrelevantandhas

noobligaontoconductanyaddionalsearches.Wewillbringamoonforprotecveorderandseeksanconsif

Skyhookpersistsinthisharassment.

RegardingtheESISearchterms,GooglerespondedonSaturday.Incaseyoudidnotreceiveit,Iama1aching

Dutta, Sanjeet

Mon 6/24/2013 10:34 PM

To:Azra Hadzimehmedovic ; Skyhook_Service ;Douglas Tillberg ;

Cc:Abrams, William ; Pada, Roxane ; Google/Skyhook K&S

; [email protected] ;

1 attachment

Skyhook v. Google - ESI;



30/217

Googlesresponsethatexplainsthelargecostandburdeninvolvedinreviewingandproducingdocumentsthat

wouldresultfromSkyhooksover-broadsearchstrings.

Regardingdeposions,GoogleconfirmstheavailabilityofMikeLockwoodtoappearonJuly23.

Aswediscussedduringourmeetandconfer,SkyhookdeposedMr.Bradyfortwodaysinthestatecourtacon.Mr.

Bradyexplainedinhisdeposionthathemanagespartnerrelaonships.Otherthanasserngthatthestatecourt

caseisdifferentthanthecurrentcase,SkyhookhasnotprovidedanexplanaonwhyMr.Bradyshouldbedeposed

againandinthispatentcase.PleaseexplainwhatknowledgeSkyhookbelievesMr.Bradyhasthatisspecifictothe

issuesofthispatentcasethatSkyhookdidnotalreadycoverinitstwodaydeposionofMr.Brady.

Mr.ZelinkawillbeavailableforhisdeposiononJuly0.Googledisagreesthatitisunderanyobligaonto

produceMr.Zelinkasdocuments,solelybecausehewillbeoneofGooglestechnical30(b)(6)witnesses.Skyhook

hasnotprovidedanyauthorityorcaselawtothecontrary.Aswediscussed,Googlehasproducedmillionsofpages

ofdocumentsincludingGooglessourcecodethatexplainstheoperaonofGooglesproduct.Inviewofthis,

SkyhookhasnotprovidedanyreasonwhyMr.Zelinkasdocumentsareneededabove-and-beyondGoogles

thoroughproduconoftechnicaldocuments.

RegardingRFPs254and255whichbothaskforpoliciesregardingthirdpartypatents,aerareasonablesearch,

Googlehasnotlocatedanysuchpolicies.

WithregardtoSkyhooksrequestsforTracbeamdiscovery,SkyhookhasnotexplainedtherelevanceofGoogles

discoveryresponsesinTracbeam.ThepatentsintheTracbeamcasearenotrelatedtothepatentsassertedby

Skyhookandaccordingly,Googleshouldnotbearthecostandburdenofproducingthetranscriptsanddiscovery

responsesthatarenotrelevanttothisacon.

Ifyouhaveanyquesons,pleaseletmeknow.

Bestregards,

_______________________________________

Sanjeet K. Du,a| Partner |King & Spalding LLP333 Twin Dolphin Dr., Ste. 400 | Redwood Shores, CA 94065

Tel: 650.590.0730 | Cell: 408.644.4064 |[email protected]


Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:35 PM


Cc: Skyhook_Service; Douglas TillbergSubject: Skyhook v. Google: Various Discovery IssuesDear Sanjeet,

I write to follow up on our latest June 20 meet and confer, in particular since Skyhook did not receive the

follow-up responses on several of these issues on Friday, June 21, which you had committed to provide. On

each of the issues addressed below (except on Mr. Zelinka's documents), unless by close of business on

Tuesday Google agrees to produce documents or provide confirmations Skyhook has been seeking for weeks



31/217

now, Skyhook will move to compel production.

Individual Depositions Skyhook Noticed on May 23:

Google's explanation that its in-house counsel has been unable to get availability from any of the seven

deponents Skyhook noticedfor a whole monthis simply unacceptable. Google is not complying with its

discovery obligations, and unless Google provides proposed dates for each of the noticed deponents by close

of business on Tuesday, Skyhook will move to compel those depositions. Separately, please get back to us on

our proposal that the parties forgo subpoenas for party witnesses and agree to produce non-duplicative

relevant documents from those witnesses' possession.

Mr. Brin's Documents:

Absent Google's response to our requests, specifically identified in my email attached below and discussed

further at our June 20 meet and confer, by close of business on Tuesday, Skyhook will move to compel

production of Mr. Brin's documents.

ESI Search Terms:

Google has not yet responded to Skyhook's June 3 request to run additional ESI searches and

produce responsive documents, and Skyhook will move to compel production absent a response by close ofbusiness on Tuesday.

Skyhook's Third Set of Document Requests:

Skyhook pointed out during our meet and confer that it is still awaiting Google's responses on RFPs 199

(licenses and negotiations with OEMs) and 304 (how Google uses location data in its advertising) and Google

has not yet provided a response.

Further, on RPFs 254 (policies regarding studies of Google's patents) and 255 (policies regarding comparisons

of Google's products with third-party patents), to the extent Google maintains that documents responsive to

these RPFs are privileged, Google must identify such documents on its privilege log.

Finally, with respect to Trackbeam litigation documents (RFP 303), Google has agreed to produce (1)

documents produced in Tracbeam that have not been produced in this action and (2) transcripts of depositions

taken in the Tracbeam action for witnesses who are common to both actions. Skyhook

requested confirmation that Google will include its discovery responses provided in that litigation as well as all

deposition transcripts (including corporate depositions). To the extent that Google deems certain of the

witnesses somehow irrelevant to this litigation, Skyhook has asked that Google identify those witnesses to

Skyhook. Given that these follow-up requests are all within the scope of our late May discussions, Skyhook

will move to compel production absent Google's agreement to produce documents or explain its belief that it

has already produced responsive documents by close of business on Tuesday.

Mr. Zelinka's Documents:

Google has identified Mr. Zelinka as its corporate deponent on core technical topics, indeed he is the sole

corporate deponent that Google has agreed to make available for deposition to date. You explained in the

meet and confer that Google identified him as the corporate witness for these topics because he has the most

comprehensive institutional knowledge among Google's employees currently working on the features of the

accused products relevant to the topics on which he has been identified. Google also identified Mr. Zelinka in

its January 30, 2013 second supplemental initial disclosures as one of only eleven Google employees

knowledgeable about the issues in this litigation, and moreover, as one of only half-dozen employees



32/217

knowledgeable about the operation of the accused products. However, Google has not collected, and has not

produced, Mr. Zelinka's documents in this litigation and its position is that it will only produce Mr. Zelinka's

documents if Skyhook can identify documents in Mr. Zelinka's files that it has not received from other

custodians. This position is clearly improper because Google, not Skyhook, has access to Mr. Zelinka's

documents, and given the importance Google has assigned to Mr. Zelinka's knowledge of the operation of the

accused products by virtue of his designation as a corporate witness. Skyhook will proceed with Mr. Zelinka's

deposition on July 10, reserving its right to seek production of Mr. Zelinka's documents after the deposition and

to reopen or continue his deposition after Google produces his documents.

Thank you.

Best, Azra

AZRAHADZIMEHMEDOVIC




650-802-6055(phone)

202-32-3879(mobile)

650-802-600(fax)

From:AzraHadzimehmedovic

Date:Wednesday,June9,203:49PM

To:"Lundin,Tom","[email protected]"

,Google/SkyhookK&S,"Abrams,

William","Pada,Roxane"

Cc:Skyhook_Service

Subject:Re:Skyhookv.Google:LarsFjeldsoe-Nielsen'sResponsesandObjeconsandotherdiscoveryissues

Tom, thank you for your responses. I will address several of them in this email in the hopes of streamlining our

telephonic meet and confer.

First, Google has selected Mr. Zelinka as a corporate representative on some of the core technical deposition

topics, yet has not named him as a custodian nor produced his documents. Under the circumstances, Mr.

Zelinka's responsive documents clearly should be produced. Please confirm that you will produce Mr. Zelinka's

responsive documents at least two weeks prior to his deposition.

Second, it is unacceptable that nearly one month after Skyhook noticed seven Google's employees for their

individual depositions, Google has not responded with a proposed date for even one of those deponents.

Google appears intent on delaying the resolution of this most straightforward issue, forcing motion practice



33/217

knowing that it will take time for the opposing briefs to get filed, only so that Google will thenon the eve of the

court's hearingpropose deposition dates. This very thing just happened with Google's interrogatory

responses it had been refusing to provide until Skyhook filed its motion to compel. It is both unreasonable and

unfair for Google to be delaying Skyhook's case in this manner and wasting both Skyhook's and the Court's

resources on such issues.

Third, Skyhook's deposition notices for Messrs. Lee and Brady in this case are wholly appropriate, and

Google's arguments about overlap in those witnesses' depositions between this and the state case are

unavailing. Skyhook's patent infringement case is separate and different from its state tortious interference

case. The technical, willfulness, and the damages issues in the patent case are specific to this case. Further,

Google cannot legitimately argue that Mr. Lee's and Mr. Brady's state-case depositions that took place before

their custodian productions in this case even commenced and before Google produced the bulk of its

production in this case are sufficient discovery of those witnesses for this case. We repeat our request for an

immediate identification of their availability as well as the availability of all individual witnesses Skyhook has

noticed nearly a month ago.

Finally, with respect to Skyhook's request for Mr. Brin's documents, Skyhook requested that Google search

the following search strings:i.

Skyhook

ii.

(Ted or Edward) w/3 Morgan

iii.

(Mike or Michael) w/3 Shean

iv.

(MacWorld or Mac World) and (Apple or Jobs or location or driv* or beacons or triangulat*)

v.

Location-based services or LBS or GLS

vi.

(Location or Wi-Fi or WiFi or Wi?Fi or wireless or WLAN) and (advert* or revenue or value)

Please explain why Google refuses to search Mr. Brin's documents for search strings v and vi. Please let us

know how many documents each of our individual requested search strings yielded. (To the extent that the

MacWorld search you ran yielded a large number of responsive documents, please let us know how many

documents are responsive to our proposed search string no. iv, which is significantly narrower.) And please

confirm that Google is refusing to produce the documents that those six search strings yield and expects

Skyhook and the Court to rely on Google's representation that although responsive documents were found, not

one is relevant.

I have already circulated a meeting invite and a dial-in for Sanjeet for our meet and confer tomorrow at 4 PM

Eastern.

Thank you.

Best, Azra

AZRAHADZIMEHMEDOVIC



34/217




650-802-6055(phone)

202-32-3879(mobile)

650-802-600(fax)

From:,"Lundin,Tom"

Date:Tuesday,June8,2036:32PM


,Google/SkyhookK&S,"Abrams,William","Pada,Roxane"

Cc:Skyhook_Service

Subject:RE:Skyhookv.Google:LarsFjeldsoe-Nielsen'sResponsesandObjeconsandotherdiscoveryissues

RFP 315: Google does not believe that it has any responsive documents. Google is confirming

again and agrees to produce any such documents that exist.

King & Spalding Confidentiality Notice:

This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication

may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you

are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the

sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.



35/217

Tuesday,June25,201310:29:07AMPacificDaylightTime

Page1o

Subject: Skyhookv.Google-ESI

Date: Saturday,June22,20136:07:05PMPacificDaylightTime

From: Lundin,Tom

To: AzraHadzimehmedovic,Dutta,Sanjeet,[email protected],Google/Skyhook

K&S,Abrams,William,Pada,Roxane

CC: Skyhook_Service

Azra --

I'm writing to follow up on the conversation between you and Sanj on Thursday. As we have explainedpreviously, Google has been diligently analyzing both Skyhook's requests to

1) amend the search terms used in the "Skyhook I" action using the amended search terms thatSkyhook proposed; and

2) add new search terms that Skyhook asserts are relevant to the "Skyhook II" action.

The analysis of Skyhook's proposals is now complete, and the results show that it would be extremelycostly and unduly burdensome to gather and produce documents resulting from Skyhook's proposedsearch terms. The results of the analysis show the following estimated costs and times required:

A) Approximately $1,225,000 and 38 days to review approximately 644,000 documents in responseto Nos. 1 & 2 above;

B) Approximately $633,000 and 19 days to review approximately 318,000 documents for only No. 1above; and

C) Approximately $1,072,000 and 33 days to review approximately 560,000 documents for only No.2 above.

The foregoing would be unquestionably unduly burdensome, even had Google not already produced morethan 2.7 million pages of documents in the Skyhook I litigation, and made the key technical information --the source code of the accused instrumentality in both actions -- available many years ago. Particularly inlight of those facts, as well as the plainly overburdensome and over broad nature of Skyhook's proposals,

Google request that Skyhook provide a more reasonable set of search strings (including, by way ofexample only, fewer terms, with closer proximities, and with narrower Boolean connectors) that are morenarrowly focused to target documents that Skyhook contends that it needs to prove the claims asserted inthe former Skyhook II case--that would not be duplicative of the information found in the vast volume ofdocuments already produced.

Regards,

Tom Lundin Jr.King & Spalding LLP1180 Peachtree St. NE

Atlanta, GA 30309-3521404-572-2808

Fax: [email protected]



36/217

EXHIBIT 4



37/217

DearBill,intheattachednotice,SkyhookisrequestingSergeyBrin'sdepositionon

February28,2013.PleaseproduceMr.Brin'semailsrelatingtoSkyhook,development

ofGoogle'slocation-basedservices,thevalueoflocationdatatoGoogle,andany

relatedanalysesorvaluations.Thesedocumentsareresponsivetoatleastthefollowing

Skyhook'sRFPs:2-6,32,39,156,and159-161.Pleasecompletethisproductionor

confirmcompletionofproductionofMr.Brin'semailbynolaterthanFebruary20,2013.

AZRAHADZIMEHMEDOVIC




650-802-6055(phone)

202-321-3879(mobile)

650-802-6001(fax)

2013-02-0C.pdf (74 KB)

Azra Hadzimehmedovic

Skyhook/Google: Brin Deposition Notice

February 6, 2013 11:10 AM



38/217

EXHIBIT 5



39/217

DearBill,

WeunderstandthatMr.BrinwasattheMacworldeventinJanuary2008atwhichAppleannouncedthatitwasusing

Skyhook'slocationtechnologyinitsiPhoneandthatMr.BrinhaddiscussionswithApplerepresentativesaboutthat

announcementandGoogle'sdispleasurewithit.Heisuniquelyabletodiscusshisreactionstotheannouncement,

andhissubsequentconversationsregardingit,aswellasanyactionstakenorpoliciesadoptedbyGoogleasa

consequencethereof.

YouhaveconfirmedthatGooglehasnotcollectedanyofMr.Brin'sowndocumentsoremailsandthatGoogle's

counselhasnotevenspokenwithMr.Brintodeterminetheextentofrelevantandnon-cumulativeinformationhe

possesses.WealsobelievethatGooglehasfailedtocollectanydocumentsfromitsexecutives.Nonetheless,based

onourreviewofGoogle'sproduction,forexample,Google'sLocation-BasedServicesmeetingnotesrevealthatboth

Mr.BrinandMr.PagereceivedbriefingsaboutthedevelopmentofGoogle'sLocation-BasedServices,andthattheyparticipatedinproductreviewsand"salesreadiness"evaluations.Further,amongthosebriefings,Mr.Brinappears

tohavereceivedbriefingsaboutGoogle'sefforttoplaceGoogle'slocationservicesintheiPhone(insteadofSkyhook

orotherthirdparties)sothatGooglecouldcollecttheuser'sWiFiinformation.Therefore,Mr.Brinhasuniquefirst-

handknowledgeaboutthedevelopmentoftheaccusedproductsandthestrategicvalueofthoseservicestoGoogle.

Further,Googlecannotdenythatitsexecutives,bothMr.PageandMr.Brin,haveplacedagreatvalueonGoogle's

locationservicesandtheextraordinaryvalueGooglereceivesfromlocation-baseddata.Theycanspeaktothatvalue

fromtheiruniquepositionatthehelmofthecompanyandtheirjudgmentandperspectiveontheissuecannotbe

replacedorsupplantedbyotherwitnesses.

Andbasedonourunderstanding,Google'srepresentationthatMr.Brinwasnotkeenlyawareofthedevelopmentof

thelocation-basedservicesproductsisincorrect.WehaveseenatleastoneemailstringinwhichMr.Brinsuggeststo

Google'sengineershowtofixabugrelatedtoGoogle'slocationservicesathreadthatappearstohavebeen

promptedbecauseMr.Brin'sownlocationitselfwasbuggy:"Sergey'slocationpingpongsaroundatnight...."Mr.

Brincanspeaktotheaccusedproductsfromtheperspectiveofanexecutivewhounderstandstheaccused

technologyandcaresaboutitsinnerworkingsaswellasitsstrategicimportancetoGoogle.

Thus,SkyhookbelievesthatMr.Brinhasuniqueandnon-repetitiveknowledgeregardingwillfulinfringementand

damagesissues.Aswearesureyouareaware,GooglehasrecentlybeenfacedwithasimilarissueinitsOraclecase,

whereittriedtoresistprovidingMr.Page'sdeposition.Justlikeinthiscase,Googlearguedthatitsfounderdidnot

havefirst-handknowledgeoftheissuesrelevanttowillfulinfringement,buttheCourtdidnotbelieveGoogle's

excuses.AlthoughtheCourtunderstoodthatMr.Pagemaynothaveevenparticipateddirectlyinthenegotiationsat

issueinthatcase,theCourtheldthatitwas"highlylikelythatMr.Pageparticipatedindecision-makingregarding

[those]negotiations."OracleAm.,Inc.v.Google,Inc.,2011U.S.Dist.LEXIS79465,at*6-7(N.D.Cal.July21,2011).

WealsonotethatsofarGooglehasonlymadeunfoundedclaimsofharassment,butGooglehasnotdeniedMr.Brin's

knowledgeonanytheissuesSkyhookhasraised.Google'spositionisespeciallytroublinggivenyourstatements

duringourRule26conferencethatSkyhook'sownCEOwasapersenon-cumulativeandhighlyrelevantdeponent

despitetheundisputedfactthathewasnotevenpresentatSkyhookuntilveryrecentlyandwasnotcapableof

havingpercipientknowledgeofanyoftherelevantbackgroundeventsinwhichMr.Brin,bycontrast,waspersonally

andinstrumentallyinvolved.Thus,werespectfullyrepeatourrequestthatyouinfactspeakwithMr.Brinabouthis

knowledgerelatedtotheactivitieswehaveidentified.AndwerequestthatGoogletellsusspecificallywhyit

believesotherGoogleemployeesarethemoreappropriatedeponentsthanMr.Brinonthespecifictopicswehave

Azra Hadzimehmedovic

Re: Skyhook v. Google -- No. 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ

March 6, 2013 2:09 PM



40/217

identifiedforMr.Brin.

Thankyou.

Best,Azra

AZRAHADZIMEHMEDOVIC




650-802-6055(phone)

202-321-3879(mobile)

650-802-6001(fax)

From:,William

Date:Monday,February25,201310:55AM

To:AzraHadzimehmedovic

Cc:AaronNathan,Skyhook_Service

,DouglasTillberg,

Google/SkyhookK&S,"Evans,Laura"

,"Lu,Sam([email protected])","Lundin,Tom"

Subject:RE:Skyhookv.Google--No.1:10-cv-11571-RWZ

DearAzra-

Youhavenotprovidedanysupportforyour"understanding...thatMr.Brinisknowledgeableonthesetopicsand

couldoffertestimonyandperspectivethatisnotdirectlyavailabletoGoogle'sotherwitnesses."Whatisthebasis

forthisunderstanding?We'veaskedyouseveraltimesforthis,butyouhavenotprovidedanyevidencetosupport

it.

Mr.Brinisafounderandseniorleaderofoneofthelargestcompaniesintheworld.Skyhookbearstheinitial

burdenofshowingthatapersoninMr.Brin'spositionhasuniqueknowledgeonrelevantsubjectmatter,i.e.,not

justhisownperspectiveoninformationavailablefromothersorthroughothermeans.Inaddition,Skyhookmust

haveactuallysoughttheinformationinanother,lessburdensomewaybeforeseekingthisdepositionand

establishingthatitisnecessary.

Skyhookhasnotmetanyofitsburdens,andthereisnobasisforimposingonMr.Bringiventhelackofany

showingbySkyhookaswehavestated.ThedepositionnoticeappearstacticalandintendedtoharassMr.Brinand

Google,particularlygiventhatthenoticeisservedatthebeginningoftakingdepositionsinthecase,before

Skyhookhasexaminedanywitnessesregardingrelevantsubjectmatter.Wearepreparedtoseekaprotective

order,andsanctions,ifSkyhookdoesnotwithdrawthedepositionnoticeforMr.Brin.

Bill

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


41/217

From: Azra Hadzimehmedovic [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:33 PMTo: Lundin, TomCc: Abrams, William; Aaron Nathan; Skyhook_Service; Douglas Tillberg; Google/Skyhook K&S; Evans, Laura; Lu, Sam([email protected])Subject: Re: Skyhook v. Google -- No. 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ

Tom,

ThankyouforfollowinguponourconversationonFriday.Yes,thepartieshaveagreedto

reschedulethecurrentlynoticeddepositionsandhavealsoagreednottowaitfortheCourttohold

thehearingregardingGoogle'smotiontoconsolidate,buttoproceedinthemeantimetoworkon

reschedulingthepreviouslynoticeddepositions.

WithrespecttoSkyhook'srequestsforMr.Brin'sdepositionandproductionofrelevantemail,

GoogleconfirmedthatithasnotinfactspokentoMr.Brintodeterminewhetherhehas

informationrelevanttoSkyhook'scase.SkyhookthereforerequeststhatGooglespecifically

confirmwithMr.Brinwhetherhehasrelevantknowledgeinthefollowingareas:(1)attendanceandparticipationatMacworld2008,includingdiscussionsrelatingtoSkyhook'sor

Google'slocationtechnology;

(2)discussionswithAppleregardingGoogle'slocation-basedservices;

(3)directionandmanagementofthedevelopmentofGoogle'slocation-basedservices;

(4)valueoflocation-baseddatatoGoogle;

(5)knowledgeofandparticipationindiscussionsrelatingtoSkyhook'slocationtechnologyand

Google'svaluationandknowledgeaboutthattechnology;and

(6)decisions/discussionsregardingtheMotorolaandSamsungdealsand/orpotentialdealswith

Skyhookrelatingtolocationtechnology.

IfMr.Briniswillingtosubmitadeclarationthathehasnotparticipatedintheactivitiesoutlined

aboveanddoesnothaveanyfirsthandknowledgeintheseareas,thenwewouldbewillingto

considerwithdrawingourdepositionnoticeandrequestforMr.Brin'semail.Ourunderstanding,

however,isthatMr.Brinisknowledgeableonthesetopicsandcouldoffertestimonyand

perspectivethatisnotdirectlyavailabletoGoogle'sotherwitnesses.Further,unlessMr.Brinis

willingtodeclareunderoaththatheinfacthasnorelevantknowledgerelatedtoSkyhook'scase,

Google'sobjectiontoconductingtargetedsearchesofhisemailonthelimitedtopicsSkyhookhas

identifiedisimproper.

Best,Azra

AZRAHADZIMEHMEDOVIC



42/217




650-802-6055(phone)

202-321-3879(mobile)

650-802-6001(fax)

On2/15/135:41PM,"Lundin,Tom"wrote:

Azra--

I'mconfirmingourconversationearliertoday.Weagreedthat,withrespecttothedepositionsnoticedbyeachpartythusfar,neitherpartyhastheexpectationthatthedepositionswilloccuronthedatessetforthinthenotices/subpoenas.Withoneexception,notedbelow,thepartieswillcontinuetoworkonidentifyingdatesforthenoticedwitnessesandwillcommunicatefurtheronpotentialrescheduleddates.

TheexceptionnotedaboveappliestothedepositionnoticeSkyhookissuedforMr.Brin.AlthoughwedidnotdiscusstheBrinnoticetoday,itwasdiscussedduringtheRule26(f)conferenceonMonday,whenGooglereiterateditspreviouslyemailedobjectionandrequestthatSkyhookwithdrawtheBrinnotice.DuringtheRule26(f)conferenceyouproposedsendingussomeinformationconcerningSkyhook'sdesiretodeposeMr.Brin.Wesaidthatwewouldreviewtheinformation,butdidnotwithdrawourrequestthatthenoticebewithdrawn.PleaseletusknowwhetherSkyhookwillagreetowithdrawtheBrinnotice,sothatwecandeterminewhetherGoogleneedstomoveforaprotectiveorder.

Pleasedon'thesitatetocallwithanyquestions.Haveagoodweekend.

Regards,TCL

King&SpaldingConfidentialityNotice:

Thismessageisbeingsentbyoronbehalfofalawyer.Itisintendedexclusivelyfortheindividualorentitytowhichitisaddressed.Thiscommunicationmaycontaininformationthatisproprietary,privilegedorconfidentialorotherwiselegallyexemptfromdisclosure.Ifyouarenotthenamedaddressee,youarenotauthorizedtoread,print,retain,copyordisseminatethismessageoranypartofit.Ifyouhavereceivedthismessageinerror,pleasenotifythesender

immediatelybye-mailanddeleteallcopiesofthemessage.

mailto:[email protected]


43/217

EXHIBIT 6



44/217

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

SKYHOOK WIRELESS, INC., )

)

Plaintiff and )Counterclaim-Defendant, )

) Case No. 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ

v. ) Case No. 1:13-cv-10153-RWZ)

GOOGLE INC., )

)Defendant and )

Counterclaimant. )

))

GOOGLE INC.S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO

SKYHOOK WIRELESS, INC.S THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant and

counterclaimant Google Inc. (Google) hereby responds and objects to the Third Set Of

Requests For Production Of Documents And Things (Nos. 176-316) (the Third Requests)

served by plaintiff and counterclaim-defendant Skyhook Wireless, Inc. (Skyhook).

GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES

Google objects to the Third Requests as unreasonably duplicative and cumulative of

Skyhook Wireless, Inc.'s First Set Of Requests For Production To Google Inc. (the First

Requests) and Skyhook Wireless, Inc.'s Second Set Of Requests For Production To Google Inc.

(the Second Requests), to the extent that the requests are directed to the 988, 694, 897, and

245 patents. During discovery in these cases, Google has produced more than 2.5 million pages

of documents (1) collected from a large number of technical document repositories, i.e., internal

sites, wikis, and dashboards, and (2) from agreed-upon custodians and additional custodians

demanded by Skyhook that were responsive to search terms relevant to the case. Google also

has made available for inspection source code relevant to the Accused Products since October



45/217

2

2011. These productions contain documents and information relevant to the claims and

defenses in Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ (D. Mass.) filed

September 15, 2010 (Skyhook I), as well the claims and defenses in Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v.

Google Inc., No. 1:10-cv-10153-RWZ (D. Mass.) (Skyhook II). Accordingly, Google objects

to Skyhooks Third Requests as unduly burdensome and unreasonably duplicative to the extent

Google has already produced information responsive to the Skyhooks Third Requests.

Google hereby incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein its General Objections

stated in the First Requests and Second Requests, and its objections and responses to individual

requests stated in the First Requests and Second Requests, to the extent that those requests are

duplicated by requests in the Third Requests, and limits its responses herein to the patents named

in Skyhook II.

Google further asserts the General Objections, Objections To Definitions, and Objections

To Instructions stated in Exhibit A hereto.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and to the objections stated in Exhibit A,

Google responds to each request for production as follows:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 176:

All Documents Relating To the Patents-in-Suit or the Related Patents.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 176:

Google objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly

burdensome, including without limitation in its use of the terms Patents-in-Suit and Related

Patents, and on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses

asserted in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Google objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the



46/217

3

attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine. Google objects to this Request to the

extent that it seeks information that is within Skyhooks knowledge, possession, custody or

control; that is in the public domain; or that is easily obtainable through less burdensome means.

Google objects to this Request to the extent that it is cumulative or duplicative of other Requests,

including without limitation Request No. 1, and seeks materials previously produced by Google.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and all General Objections set forth above

and in Exhibit A, and to the extent Google understands this request, Google has produced or will

produce such representative, non-privileged documents as, after a reasonable and good faith

search, Google determines exist in its possession, custody, or control, if any, that may be

responsive to this Request as it relates to patents in Skyhooks Amended Complaint not asserted

in Skyhook I.


All Documents Relating To any of the Skyhook Patent Inventors.



burdensome, and on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and

defenses asserted in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Google objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents

protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine. Google objects to

this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is within Skyhooks knowledge,

possession, custody or control; that is in the public domain; or that is easily obtainable through

less burdensome means. Google objects to this Request to the extent that it is cumulative or

duplicative of other Requests, including without limitation Request No. 2, and seeks materials

previously produced by Google.



47/217

4


and in Exhibit A, and to the extent Google understands this request, Google states that it has

produced such non-privileged documents as exist in its possession, custody, or control, as have

been located after a reasonable and good faith search that are responsive to this Request.


Documents, including all source code, sufficient to show the structure, function, operation,

design, testing, and development, of Google Location.



burdensome, including without limitation in its use of the term Google Location, and on the

grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses asserted in this

action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Google

objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client

privilege and/or the work-product doctrine. Google objects to this Request to the extent that it

seeks information that is within Skyhooks knowledge, possession, custody or control; that is in

the public domain; or that is easily obtainable through less burdensome means. Google objects

to this Request to the extent that it is cumulative or duplicative of other Requests, including

without limitation Request No. 5, and seeks materials previously produced by Google. Google

incorporates herein its Response to Request No. 5.



produced such non-privileged documents as exist in its possession, custody, or control, including

without limitation source code, as have been located after a reasonable and good faith search

that are responsive to this Request.



48/217

5


Documents, including all source code, sufficient to show the structure, function, operation,

design, testing, and development of Google Location Service.



burdensome, including without limitation in its use of the term Google Location Services, and

on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses asserted in

this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Google objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-

client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine. Google objects to this Request to the extent

that it seeks information that is within Skyhooks knowledge, possession, custody or control; that

is in the public domain; or that is easily obtainable through less burdensome means. Google

objects to this Request to the extent that it is cumulative or duplicative of other Requests,

including without limitation Request No. 6, and seeks materials previously produced by Google.

Google incorporates herein its Response to Request No. 6.



produced such non-privileged documents as exist in its possession, custody, or control, as have

been located after a reasonable and good faith search that are responsive to this Request.


Documents, including all source code, sufficient to show the structure, function, operation,design, testing, and development of Googles Network Location Provider.



burdensome, and on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and



49/217

6

defenses asserted in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Google objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents

protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine. Google objects to

this Request to the extent that it seeks