Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05340/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05340-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The general factual background of this action has been described in prior orders and will

not be repeated here.

2

 Google represents that it would have done so even in the absence of a specific order, and

that the motion had been filed while meet and confer efforts were ongoing only because of the filing

deadline imposed by Local Civil Rule 26-2.

1

*E-FILED 11/13/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GOOGLE INC., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMERICAN BLIND & WALLPAPER FACTORY,

INC.,

Defendant. /

NO. C 03-5340 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

MOTION TO COMPEL

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is the motion of plaintiff Google, Inc. to compel defendant American Blind

& Wallpaper Factory, Inc. “to satisfy its outstanding discovery obligations,” which was taken under

submission without oral argument, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7-1 (b). The matter having been

fully briefed, the motion will be granted in part, and denied in part, as set forth below.

BACKGROUND1

At the time Google filed this motion, it presented ten topics of dispute (lettered A through J). 

Upon initial review of the motion, the Court issued an order directing the parties to engage in further

meet and confer efforts to resolve as many of the disputes between them as possible.2 Those efforts

have resulted in the parties’ full agreement that topics G and I have been resolved, and in some

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 217 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

narrowing of certain other issues. Topics B and F have also been resolved, contingent on American

Blind fulfilling the promises it has made to produce certain additional materials, which it is hereby

ordered to do, if it has not already. The remaining issues will be discussed below, using the

lettering of Google’s motion.

DISCUSSION

1. Topic A

American Blind represents that it has now produced all responsive, existing documents in

this category, in readable form, and that the topic is therefore moot. Google contends that because

American Blind has effectively admitted that additional documents previously existed but have since

been destroyed, it should be “compelled to explain adequately, by affidavit, why no such documents

exist.” On this record, the Court agrees that American Blind must do more than assert through

counsel that all responsive documents have been produced. Accordingly, within 20 days of the date

of this order, American Blind shall provide a verified statement signed by a responsible corporate

official that American Blind has made a good faith search for responsive materials and that all

responsive, non-privileged documents in this category have been produced.

2. Topic C

Google seeks to re-depose American Blind’s designee under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 (b) (6) on the

topic of damages. The deponent testified as to American Blind’s theory of damages, but frankly

admitted both that the calculation of damages would be “difficult” and that neither he nor any one

else at American Blind has performed such a calculation. While American Blind is correct that it

bears the burden of proof at trial with respect to its damages, that does not end the inquiry at this

juncture. If American Blind intends to present its damages calculations solely through expert

testimony, then its position that its 30 (b) (6) witness has adequately addressed the topic by

providing all information known to the company will be accepted. If, however, American Blind

intends to offer the testimony of any of its employees regarding the amount, extent, or quantification

of its damages, American Blind must present for deposition one or more designees who are fullyprepared to testify as to all such information in the possession of the company. American Blind

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 217 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

shall inform Google as to how it intends to proceed within 3 days of the date of this order, and if

further depositions are to be had, they shall be scheduled and completed as promptly as practicable.

3. Topic D

American Blind designated Jeffery Alderman to testify regarding “American Blind’s

Affiliate Program.” Google contends that during the deposition, Alderman testified that “he had

relied on certain documents . . . includ[ing] an analysis of ABWF’s natural search results.” Google

further argues that American Blind’s counsel promised at the deposition to identify all of the

documents on which Alderman had relied, and to produce any that had not already been produced. 

Google then points to what it contends has been a “continuously evolving position” on the part of

American Blind regarding what documents Alderman relied on, and argues that American Blind has

still failed to produce any document that contains any analysis of “natural search results.” 

Google reads too much into Alderman’s testimony in reaching its conclusion that some

document or documents have not been produced. The transcript submitted by Google reveals the

following exchange:

Q: Did you do any analysis of whether there was an increase or decrease in visits to

your website via natural results on branded searches?

A: We did.

Q: And what was the result?

A: We did not see any increase.

Then, several pages later, in the context of questioning regarding other conclusions reached

by Alderman, the following took place:

Q: Do you have that data?

A: I don’t know if it’s here in front of us; but, obviously we could pull that together. 

I’m sure that was – I’m surprised it was not sent.

 [American Blind’s counsel]: Certainly, yeah, if it wasn’t previously sent, of

course we would be happy to send it. 

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 217 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

 Nowhere in the testimony submitted by Google is there any definitive statement that

Alderman performed or relied on any written analysis of “natural search results.” Although there are

some minor inconsistencies in American Blind's subsequent identification of the documents to which

Alderman was referring, its basic position is consistent both with Alderman’s deposition testimony

and with its argument that no documents of the nature envisioned by Google have ever existed. The

real controversy appears to arise from the fact that Google simply does not find it credible that

Alderman could have done any meaningful “analysis” of “natural search results” from the data in the

documents that were before him. Google has failed to show, however, that any failure to produce or

identify documents prior to or at the deposition precluded it from inquiring further regarding the

analysis Alderman testified was done. Google’s choice not to follow up during the deposition on

Alderman’s assertion that the analysis occurred does not justify reopening the deposition now. On

this record, no further deposition of Alderman or other further response will be required.

4. Topic E

Google seeks to compel American Blind to respond (other than with objections) to two

requests for admissions. The first request seeks an admission that under certain described

circumstances no “use” of American Blind’s trademarks would occur “within the meaning of the

Lanham Act.” Under Fed. R. Civ. R. 36, requests for admission may properly relate to “the

application of law to fact,” but “requests for admissions cannot be used to compel an admission of a

conclusion of law.” Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 60 F.Supp.2d 1050, 1057 (S.D.Cal. 1999). 

Google’s attempt to characterize this request as merely calling for application of law to fact is not

persuasive. The request in essence calls for American Blind to admit (or deny) a conclusion of law,

and no further response will be compelled.

The second request seeks an admission that if a Google user searches for “american blind,”

the user will have “no way to determine for certain” whether an ad appearing on the search results

page “was triggered by the phrase ‘american blind’ or some other word or phrase.” It is unclear

what hypothetical Google is proposing in this request. If the only search term or terms entered by

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 217 Filed 11/13/06 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

the user is “american blind” (with or without the quotation marks), then presumably any ads

appearing on the results page necessarily would have been “triggered” by one or both of those

words, unless the ad was not “triggered” by anything in the search. It may be that Google is

attempting to ask about a hypothetical situation where a user enters “american blind” (again with or

without quotation marks) and one or more other words or phrases. The request, however, does not

say that; it refers only to a situation where a “user searches for ‘american blind.’” Accordingly, the

request relies on an incomplete and confusing hypothetical, and no further response will be required.

5. Topic H

As with Topic A, American Blind represents that it has produced all responsive documents in

this category. Google demands that American Blind be compelled to produce an affidavit

“describing its document search and collection processes.” Google points out that American Blind

has effectively admitted that it did not previously search employees’ email accounts, not only for

documents in this category but possibly with respect to other document requests as well.

American Blind, of course, was not necessarily under an obligation to search every employee

email account for documents responsive to every document request propounded in this action;

instead it needed to make a reasonable and diligent effort to locate any responsive documents in any

place they were likely to be found. It appears that American Blind may have not previously

recognized that its obligation to search for documents extended to searching relevant email accounts,

but that counsel has now taken steps to rectify the situation. On this record, the Court will not

compel American Blind to describe its document search and collection process, but it will require

American Blind to provide within 20 days of the date of this order a verified statement signed by a

responsible corporate official that American Blind has made a good faith search for responsive

materials and that all responsive, non-privileged documents in this category have been produced.

6. Topic J

Google seeks to compel American Blind either to reproduce all of the documents it has

produced in this action “as they are kept in the ordinary course of business” or to “organize and label

them to correspond with the categories in [Google’s] request[s].” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (b). 

Google points to the fact that the Court previously issued an order imposing the same requirement

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 217 Filed 11/13/06 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

on Google.

American Blind does not dispute that it must either produce documents as kept “in the

ordinary course of business” or organized and labeled to correspond with the requests. Instead,

American Blind simply repeats that it has produced documents as kept in the ordinary course of

business, and that the cover letters or indexes it provided with each production were sufficient. 

American Blind fails to respond to any of the specific examples Google provides to show that there

is simply no reasonable basis to believe that “in the ordinary course of business” American Blind in

fact keeps the documents in the form produced.

At heart, American Blind is arguing that it has adequately described the nature and relevance

of each group of documents it has produced, and that Google is being unreasonable and hypertechnical by insisting on something more. Google, on the other hand, asserts that it has experienced

genuine difficulty and prejudice from not being able to determine readily “where documents came

from or what they are.”

The purpose of the rules is not to impose “make-work,” but to facilitate efficient discovery

that strikes a reasonable balance between the burdens to each party, with flexibility as to what works

best in a particular circumstance. Thus, when it is more convenient for a party to produce

documents as kept “in the ordinary course,” it may do so, provided that the documents actually are

produced as kept. Here, American Blind has failed to show that it did so. 

Accordingly, American Blind has the option of reproducing the documents as kept, or of

providing Google with an index correlating the documents produced with each of Google’s requests. 

American Blind has argued that “the descriptions provided by American Blind can easily be

correlated to Google’s 30 (b) (6) topics and document requests.” Thus, any concern that doing so

would only be “make-work” is ameliorated by American Blind’s admission that it will not be a

burdensome task. Therefore, within 20 days of the date of this order, American Blind shall provide

an index identifying by production number all documents responsive to each of Google’s document

requests; or, at its option, American Blind shall reproduce its documents as kept in the ordinary

course of business.

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 217 Filed 11/13/06 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C 03-5340 JF (RS) 

7

CONCLUSION

Google’s motion to compel is granted to the extent set forth above and is otherwise denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 217 Filed 11/13/06 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C 03-5340 JF (RS) 

8

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Ethan B. Andelman andelmane@howrey.com, gagnons@howrey.com

Dawn Beery dbeery@kelleydrye.com

Susan Jean Greenspon sgreenspon@kelleydrye.com, cplater@kelleydrye.com;

vallen@kelleydrye.com; sdunlap@kelleydrye.com

Ravind Singh Grewal rsg@kvn.com

Klaus Hemingway Hamm khamm@kvn.com, efiling@kvn.com; wik@kvn.com

Ajay Krishnan akrishnan@kvn.com, efiling@kvn.com; rthomas@kvn.com

Mark A. Lemley mlemley@kvn.com, srosen@kvn.com

Michael H. Page mhp@kvn.com, efiling@kvn.com; sjr@kvn.com; nsn@kvn.com

Robert Nathan Phillips phillipsr@howrey.com, gagnons@howrey.com

David A. Rammelt drammelt@kelleydrye.com, sdunlap@kelleydrye.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 11/13/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 217 Filed 11/13/06 Page 8 of 8