`
`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)
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
