`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-JLH
`
`
`
`
`
`)))))))))
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`LETTER TO THE HONORABLE JENNIFER L. HALL FROM DAVID E. MOORE
`REGARDING UPDATED DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Andrew L. Brown (#6766)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`abrown@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Google LLC
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Robert W. Unikel
`John Cotiguala
`Matt Lind
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel: (312) 449-6000
`
`Robert R. Laurenzi
`Chad J. Peterman
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Tel: (212) 318-6000
`
`Ginger D. Anders
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 500E
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Tel: (202) 220-1100
`
`Vincent Y. Ling
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`350 S. Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Tel: (213) 683-9100
`
`Dated: April 25, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 487 Filed 04/25/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 51010
`
`Dear Judge Hall:
`
`April 25, 2023
`
`The parties have further streamlined the issues for resolution relating to the Anind Dey
`
`deposition designations, and so wish to provide the court with an updated joint submission
`reflecting their pending disputes. There are no longer any disputes with respect to the Miller
`designations or the Dey or Miller exhibits.
`
`Accordingly, please find attached the updated Anind Dey deposition transcript, indicating
`Google’s designations, Arendi’s counter-designations, and the parties’ objections and positions
`(Exhibit 1); and a spreadsheet listing the parties’ current deposition designations, counter-
`designations, objections, and positions (Exhibit 2).
`
`Notably, many, though not all, of the parties’ objections are common across various
`deposition designations. To avoid burdening the Court with repetitive objections, the parties
`provide the following positions on those repeated objections:
`
`
`Arendi
`
`
`
`
` Leading: Arendi did not raise this objection at deposition, either by not raising
`any form objection or by not specifying a “leading” objection giving counsel the
`opportunity to correct any deficiency, and the questions were proper.
`
` Leading: Google’s designations include leading questions that had a major impact
`on the testimony. Rule 611 is clear that leading questions can only be used with a
`witness who is adverse to or hostile to the questioning party. Mr. Dey is not
`adverse to Google, much less hostile. Arendi objected to Google’s leading
`questions in the record, and they should be excluded as improper.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ David E. Moore
`
`David E. Moore
`
`DEM:nmt/10773066/12599.00040
`
`Enclosures
`cc:
`Clerk of the Court (via hand delivery)
`Counsel of Record (via electronic mail)
`
`