Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05340/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05340-29/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

*E-FILED 4/27/07*

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)

CORRECTED ORDER RE

FURTHER EVIDENTIARY

SUBMISSIONS

In its opposition to the pending sanctions motion, and at the hearing, defendant American

Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. requested leave to submit additional declarations regarding the

efforts it made to preserve and collect documents during the course of this litigation. American

Blind explained that it did not submit such materials with its opposition because it was concerned it

might waive attorney-client privilege by doing so. Plaintiff Google, Inc. contends that such

additional declarations are unnecessary in light of the existing record of deposition testimony from

American Blind employees and former employees as to what was or was not done.

On the present record, it appears that at least until 2006, American Blind made virtually no

effort to search for electronic documents, particularly email, that might be responsive to document

requests propounded by Google. Rather, it appears that American Blind employees were only

instructed to collect any email transmitted between American Blind and Google, and that is all they

did. It further appears that American Blind effectively had no document retention policy. It is

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 311 Filed 04/27/07 Page 1 of 4
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

 Such disclosure, of course, could constitute a waiver of any work product protection for

such information, the scope of which would depend on the extent and nature of the disclosure.

2

unclear whether or how long emails likely would have been stored on American Blind’s servers, but

the record strongly supports an inference that at least some responsive emails and perhaps other

documents were no longer available in 2006 when additional searches were undertaken.

Because the current record supports the imposition of at least some form of sanctions, the

Court concludes it would not be appropriate to disregard American Blind’s request to submit

additional evidence as to its document preservation and collection efforts. Even though 

American Blind’s concern about attorney-client privilege was unwarranted because it did not need to

disclose attorney-client communications to establish the nature and extent of its preservation and

collection efforts, it would not serve the interests of justice to preclude American Blind from now

attempting to make the showing it believed it was constrained from making absent a resolution of

the privilege issue.

In submitting additional declarations, American Blind need not disclose any of the

communications between its counsel and its employees. Rather, the employees should state what

they did with respect to preserving and collecting documents. In the event an attorney for American

Blind personally participated in those activities (beyond simply discussing with client

representatives what should be done), the attorney may likewise state what he or she did, without

implicating the privilege.1

 

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Within 10 days of the date of this order, American Blind shall submit such additional

declaration or declarations as it may see fit, addressing specifically, (a) its policies, practices, and

procedures relating to preserving documents, particularly email and other electronic documents, at

any and all times after its dispute with Google arose but prior to 2006, and (b) its policies, practices,

and procedures relating to the search for and collection of such documents in response to discovery

requests propounded by Google during the same time period.

2. Within 10 days thereafter, Google may file a response, not to exceed 10 pages, 

addressing such declarations. Google may provide additional deposition transcript excerpts, if

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 311 Filed 04/27/07 Page 2 of 4
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) 

3

appropriate, to which the page limit does not apply.

3. Neither parties’ filings should address any other aspect of the pending motion.

4. Upon receipt of Google’s response, the matter will be re-submitted for decision without

further argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 311 Filed 04/27/07 Page 3 of 4
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) 

4

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; nsn@kvn.com

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

Caroline Claire Plater cplater@kelleydrye.com, heberhart@kelleydrye.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: 4/27/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 311 Filed 04/27/07 Page 4 of 4