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
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196 Filed 07/01/13 Page 2 of 7
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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.
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196 Filed 07/01/13 Page 3 of 7
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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)
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196 Filed 07/01/13 Page 4 of 7
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
Thomas F. Maffei (BBO 313220)Douglas R. Tillberg (BBO 661573)
GRIESINGER, TIGHE & MAFFEI, LLP176 Federal Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110(617) 542-9900
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196 Filed 07/01/13 Page 5 of 7
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
6/217
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196 Filed 07/01/13 Page 7 of 7
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
8/217
EXHIBIT 1
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 1 of 11
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 2 of 11
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 3 of 11
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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.
8. Google objects to the Interrogatories and to each Interrogatory to the
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.
9. Google objects to the Interrogatories and to each Interrogatory to the
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.
10. Google objects to the Interrogatories and to each Interrogatory to the
extent they contain discrete subparts in violation of LR 26.1(c). Skyhooks Interrogatories
contains no fewer than 4 interrogatories and discrete subparts.
11. Google objects to the Interrogatories and to each Interrogatory to the
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.
12. Google objects to the Interrogatories and to each Interrogatory to the
extent they incorporate or reference Skyhooks overbroad, vague and ambiguous definition of
Google Location and Google Wi-Fi Location Database.
13. Google objects to the Interrogatories and to each Interrogatory to the
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.
14. Google objects to the Interrogatories and to each Interrogatory to the
extent they purport to seek discovery regarding claims not identified or asserted by Skyhook.
Google will respond only with regard to the asserted claims.
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 4 of 11
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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.
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 5 of 11
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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):
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 structure, operation, and function of Google Location:
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 6 of 11
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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.
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(c) (sales and marketing 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
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.
Google reserves the right to supplement its response to this interrogatory as provided by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.
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.
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 7 of 11
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLPOne Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110-1726, U.S.A.617.951.8000
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 8 of 11
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 9 of 11
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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.
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 10 of 11
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
Douglas R. Tillberg
Griesinger, Tighe & Maffei, LLP
Suite 400176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: 617-542-9900Facsimile: 617-542-0900
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
/s/ Audrey Lo
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 11 of 11
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
19/217
EXHIBIT 2
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-2 Filed 07/01/13 Page 1 of 9
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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)
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-2 Filed 07/01/13 Page 2 of 9
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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.
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-2 Filed 07/01/13 Page 3 of 9
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-2 Filed 07/01/13 Page 4 of 9
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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.
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-2 Filed 07/01/13 Page 5 of 9
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
24/217
Page5o
Regards,Tom Lundin Jr.King & Spalding LLP1180 Peachtree St. NE
Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
404-572-2808Fax: [email protected]
From: Azra Hadzimehmedovic [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 4:33 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 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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-2 Filed 07/01/13 Page 6 of 9
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
25/217
Page6o
confirmbyMondaythatyouhaveacceptedallproposeddates.
Thankyou.
Best,Azra
AZRAHADZIMEHMEDOVIC
TENSEGRITYLAWGROUPLLP
555TwinDolphinDrive,Suite360
RedwoodShores,CA94065
650-802-6055(phone)
202-321-3879(mobile)
650-802-6001(fax)
From:,"Lundin,Tom"
Date:Thursday,June13,201311:53PM
To:AzraHadzimehmedovic,"[email protected]"
,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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-2 Filed 07/01/13 Page 7 of 9
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-2 Filed 07/01/13 Page 8 of 9
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
27/217
Page8o
From: Azra Hadzimehmedovic [mailto:[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
TENSEGRITYLAWGROUPLLP
555TwinDolphinDrive,Suite360
RedwoodShores,CA94065
650-802-6055(phone)
202-321-3879(mobile)
650-802-6001(fax)
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-2 Filed 07/01/13 Page 9 of 9
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
28/217
EXHIBIT 3
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-3 Filed 07/01/13 Page 1 of 8
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
1 attachment
Skyhook v. Google - ESI;
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-3 Filed 07/01/13 Page 2 of 8
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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]
From: Azra Hadzimehmedovic [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:35 PM
To: Lundin, Tom; [email protected]; Google/Skyhook K&S; Abrams, William; Pada, Roxane
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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-3 Filed 07/01/13 Page 3 of 8
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-3 Filed 07/01/13 Page 4 of 8
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
TENSEGRITYLAWGROUPLLP
555TwinDolphinDrive,Suite360
RedwoodShores,CA94065
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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-3 Filed 07/01/13 Page 5 of 8
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-3 Filed 07/01/13 Page 6 of 8
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
34/217
TENSEGRITYLAWGROUPLLP
555TwinDolphinDrive,Suite360
RedwoodShores,CA94065
650-802-6055(phone)
202-32-3879(mobile)
650-802-600(fax)
From:,"Lundin,Tom"
Date:Tuesday,June8,2036:32PM
To:AzraHadzimehmedovic,"[email protected]"
,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.
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-3 Filed 07/01/13 Page 7 of 8
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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]
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-3 Filed 07/01/13 Page 8 of 8
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
36/217
EXHIBIT 4
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-4 Filed 07/01/13 Page 1 of 2
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
TENSEGRITYLAWGROUPLLP
555TwinDolphinDrive,Suite360
RedwoodShores,CA94065
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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-4 Filed 07/01/13 Page 2 of 2
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
38/217
EXHIBIT 5
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-5 Filed 07/01/13 Page 1 of 5
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-5 Filed 07/01/13 Page 2 of 5
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
40/217
identifiedforMr.Brin.
Thankyou.
Best,Azra
AZRAHADZIMEHMEDOVIC
TENSEGRITYLAWGROUPLLP
555TwinDolphinDrive,Suite360
RedwoodShores,CA94065
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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-5 Filed 07/01/13 Page 3 of 5
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-5 Filed 07/01/13 Page 4 of 5
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
42/217
TENSEGRITYLAWGROUPLLP
555TwinDolphinDrive,Suite360
RedwoodShores,CA94065
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.
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-5 Filed 07/01/13 Page 5 of 5
mailto:[email protected]7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
43/217
EXHIBIT 6
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-6 Filed 07/01/13 Page 1 of 145
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-6 Filed 07/01/13 Page 2 of 145
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-6 Filed 07/01/13 Page 3 of 145
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 177:
All Documents Relating To any of the Skyhook Patent Inventors.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 177:
Google objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly
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.
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-6 Filed 07/01/13 Page 4 of 145
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
47/217
4
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 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.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 178:
Documents, including all source code, sufficient to show the structure, function, operation,
design, testing, and development, of Google Location.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 178:
Google objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly
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.
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 states that it has
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.
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-6 Filed 07/01/13 Page 5 of 145
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
48/217
5
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 179:
Documents, including all source code, sufficient to show the structure, function, operation,
design, testing, and development of Google Location Service.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 179:
Google objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly
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.
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 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.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 180:
Documents, including all source code, sufficient to show the structure, function, operation,design, testing, and development of Googles Network Location Provider.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 180:
Google objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly
burdensome, and on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 196-6 Filed 07/01/13 Page 6 of 145
7/28/2019 13-07-01 Declaration in Support of Skyhook Motion to Compel
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