Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/4:2009cv05939/222640/143/3.html
Timestamp: 2018-03-18 21:51:20
Document Index: 517319794

Matched Legal Cases: ['Case No: 09', 'Case No: 09', 'Case No: 09', 'Case No: 09', 'Case No: 09', 'Case No: 09', 'Case No: 09', 'Case No: 09']

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California California Northern District Court Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc. Filing 143 Attachment 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Ex. 2 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CLARK DECL. ISO REPLY ISO MTN. PART. SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 JOHN L. SLAFSKY, State Bar No. 195513 DAVID L. LANSKY, State Bar No. 199952 HOLLIS BETH HIRE, State Bar No. 203651 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 493-6811 jslafsky@wsgr.com dlansky@wsgr.com hhire@wsgr.com Attorneys for Defendant / Counterclaimant GODADDY.COM, INC. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD, 13 Plaintiff, 14 vs. 15 GODADDY.COM, INC., 16 Defendant. 17 18 GODADDY.COM, INC., 19 20 21 22 Counterclaimant, vs. PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD, Counterclaim Defendant. 23 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 09-CV-5939 PJH GO DADDY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 21-25) 24 25 26 27 28 GO DADDY’S RESPONSE TO THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 21-25) Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH 4534112_2.DOCX APP010 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, Defendant / Counterclaimant 2 GoDaddy.com, Inc. (“Go Daddy”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby responds to 3 the Third Set of Interrogatories (“Requests”) by Plaintiff / Counterclaim Defendant Petroliam 4 Nasional Berhad (“Plaintiff” or “Petronas”). 5 No admissions of any nature whatsoever are implied by, or should be inferred from, these 6 Responses. Each of these Responses is based on Go Daddy’s understanding of each individual 7 interrogatory and, to the extent that Plaintiff asserts an interpretation of any interrogatory that is 8 inconsistent with that understanding, Go Daddy reserves the right to supplement these 9 Responses. 10 11 GENERAL OBJECTIONS Go Daddy makes the following general objections, whether or not separately set forth in 12 response to each interrogatory. Although Go Daddy may repeat some of these general objections 13 in a specific response because they are particularly applicable, such specific citations are not to 14 be construed as a waiver of any other general objections applicable to the interrogatory. These 15 general objections are incorporated in each response to each interrogatory as if fully set forth in 16 each of the individual responses below. 17 GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 1: 18 Go Daddy objects to the Requests, and to each and every individual interrogatory, to the 19 extent they seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, 20 and/or any other applicable privilege or protection. Without prejudice to this objection, Go Daddy 21 will provide responses to the Requests to the extent that such responses do not waive such 22 privileges or protections. 23 GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 2: 24 All responses to the Requests are based upon the information presently known to Go 25 Daddy and are given without prejudice to Go Daddy’s right to adduce evidence discovered or 26 analyzed subsequent to the date of these responses. Go Daddy expressly reserves the right to 27 revise and supplement its responses to the Requests. 28 GO DADDY’S RESPONSE TO THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 21-25) Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH ~2~ APP011 4534112_2.DOCX 1 2 GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 3: Go Daddy objects to the Requests, and to each and every individual interrogatory, to the 3 extent they seek information outside of Go Daddy’s possession, custody, or control, on the 4 grounds that any such request is overbroad and unduly burdensome, seeks to impose discovery 5 obligations in excess of those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and would subject 6 Go Daddy to unreasonable annoyance, burden, and expense. 7 GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 4: 8 9 Go Daddy objects to the Requests, and to each and every individual interrogatory, as unduly burdensome, oppressive and in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the 10 extent they purport to require Go Daddy to respond on behalf of, or conduct any inquiry or 11 investigation with respect to, any party other than Go Daddy. Go Daddy will only answer the 12 request on its own behalf. 13 GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 5: 14 Go Daddy objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek information that is neither 15 relevant, admissible, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, 16 and to the extent that they require Go Daddy to make legal conclusions. 17 GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 6: 18 Go Daddy objects to the Requests, and to each and every individual interrogatory, as 19 overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent they do not include a limitation or proposed 20 definition of a relevant time period. 21 GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 7: 22 Go Daddy objects to the Requests, and to each and every individual interrogatory, to the 23 extent they are not consistent with or do not meet the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil 24 Procedure. Go Daddy’s agreement to endeavor to answer the Requests, and each and every 25 individual interrogatory, is not, and should not be construed as, Go Daddy’s waiver of its right to 26 object to these or any other requests as violative of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 27 GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 8: 28 Go Daddy objects to the Requests, and to each and every individual interrogatory GO DADDY’S RESPONSE TO THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 21-25) Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH ~3~ APP012 4534112_2.DOCX 1 contained therein, to the extent they seek information related to experts. Go Daddy will provide 2 information related to experts consistent with the Court’s schedule for expert discovery. 3 GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 9: 4 Go Daddy specifically reserves all objections as to the competence, relevancy, materiality, 5 and admissibility of its documents and interrogatory responses or the subject matter thereof, and 6 all rights to object on any ground to the use of any document or interrogatory response, or the 7 subject matter thereof, in any subsequent proceeding, including without limitation the trial of this 8 or any action. Go Daddy’s Responses are made expressly subject to, and without in any manner 9 waiving, any and all objections to the competency, relevance, materiality and/or admissibility of 10 any of the matters encompassed in the following Responses. 11 SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS 12 Go Daddy expressly incorporates the above General Objections as though set forth fully in 13 response to each of the following individual interrogatories and, to the extent they are not raised in 14 any particular response, Go Daddy does not waive those objections. An answer to an 15 interrogatory shall not be deemed a waiver of any applicable specific or general objection. 16 Likewise, an answer to an interrogatory shall not be deemed an admission of any assertions 17 contained in that interrogatory. 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 19 Please describe in detail the services provided by GoDaddy related to the disputed 20 domain names, including technical aspects of routing/forwarding the disputed domain names. 21 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 22 In addition to the General Objections, Go Daddy objects to this interrogatory on the 23 grounds that it is cumulative, overbroad and harassing, vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, 24 particularly with respect to the phrase “services provided by GoDaddy related to the disputed 25 domain names...”. 26 Subject to and without waving the foregoing objections, Go Daddy responds as follows: 27 Since April 1, 2007, Go Daddy has served as the registrar for the domain names 28 “petronastower.net” and “petronastowers.net.” As part of its registrar services, Go Daddy GO DADDY’S RESPONSE TO THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 21-25) Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH ~4~ APP013 4534112_2.DOCX 1 provided routing services, pointing the domain names to the name servers or websites of the 2 registrant’s choosing. At times, Go Daddy routed or “forwarded” the domain names to a pre- 3 existing website, automatically at the request of the domain name registrant. Further information 4 concerning the services provided by Go Daddy to the domain names can be found at GD- 5 000293; GD-000298; GD-000361—GD-000362; GD-000366; GD-000384—GD-000392; GD- 6 000560—GD-000563 of Go Daddy’s production. Go Daddy transferred the petronastower.net 7 domain name to counsel for Petronas, Perry Clark, on May 18, 2010. Go Daddy transferred the 8 petronastowers.net domain name to Clark on August 30, 2010. For additional details regarding 9 the technical aspects of the services provided, see the Expert Report of Michael Palage, served 10 on Petronas on October 3, 2011. 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 22: 12 Please describe in detail the information GoDaddy has in its possession regarding David 13 Daash and the “registration and use of the disputed domain names; hosting of destination 14 website; destination website content,” to which GoDaddy refers in its supplemental initial 15 disclosures dated June 29, 2011, including when GoDaddy became aware that David Daash was 16 the registrant of one or both of the disputed domain names and any changes to the Whois record 17 related thereto. 18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: 19 Subject to and without waving the foregoing objections, Go Daddy responds as follows: 20 The contact audit history possessed by Go Daddy for domain name “petronastower.net” 21 indicates that at the time petronastower.net was transferred to Go Daddy on April 1, 2007, Heiko 22 Schoenekess was the registrant. The registrant of petronastower.net was changed by the account 23 holder to David Daash on April 1, 2007. On July 2, 2009 the registrant was changed by the 24 account holder back to Heiko Schoenekess. On December 12, 2009, the registrant of 25 “petronastower.net” was changed by the account holder to David Daash, and again back to Heiko 26 Schoenekess on the very same date. The contact audit history relating to David Daash and 27 petronastower.net, including Daash’s listed registrant contact information, can be found at GD- 28 000151—GD-000152 of Go Daddy’s production. A copy of the results of a Whois search for GO DADDY’S RESPONSE TO THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 21-25) Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH ~5~ APP014 4534112_2.DOCX 1 petronastower.net from December 21, 2009—listing David Daash as the registrant—can also be 2 found at GD-000618—GD-000619 of Go Daddy’s production. 3 The contact audit history possessed by Go Daddy for domain name “petronastowers.net” 4 indicates that at the time petronastowers.net was transferred to Go Daddy on April 1, 2007, 5 Heiko Schoenekess was the registrant. The registrant of petronastowers.net was changed by the 6 account holder to David Daash on April 1, 2007. On July 2, 2009 the registrant was changed by 7 the account holder back to Heiko Schoenekess. The contact audit history relating to David 8 Daash and petronastowers.net, including Daash’s listed registrant contact information, can be 9 found at GD-000109—GD-000110 of Go Daddy’s production. 10 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Please describe in detail the information GoDaddy has in its possession regarding Bruno 12 Zehnder and the “hosting of destination website and destination website content” to which 13 GoDaddy refers in its supplemental initial disclosures dated June 29, 2011. 14 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: 15 Subject to and without waving the foregoing objections, Go Daddy responds as follows: 16 On December 21, 2009, a search was performed in the Whois database to determine the 17 domain name and contact information for the registrant of the domain name “visit-x.net”—the 18 “destination website” to which “petronastower.net” had been directed as of December 21, 2009. 19 The Whois search results indicate Bruno Zehnder to be the registrant of “visit-x.net.” Further 20 information concerning this search, as well as a copy of the search results, can be found at GD- 21 001593—GD-001603 of Go Daddy’s production. 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 24: 23 Please describe in detail GoDaddy’s services for “External Domains” to which GoDaddy 24 refers in the document produced with production PET GD 2469 (attached hereto as Exhibit A), 25 including the technical aspects of such services and the differences, if any, between those 26 services and the “routing/forwarding the disputed domain names” to which GoDaddy refers in its 27 supplemental initial disclosures dated June 29, 2011 and by identifying all persons with 28 knowledge of the foregoing and by describing all documents related to the foregoing. GO DADDY’S RESPONSE TO THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 21-25) Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH ~6~ APP015 4534112_2.DOCX 1 2 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24: In addition to the General Objections, Go Daddy objects to this interrogatory on the 3 grounds that it is cumulative, overbroad and harassing, vague, ambiguous and unintelligible, 4 particularly with respect to the phrase “services provided by GoDaddy related to the disputed 5 domain names...”. 6 Subject to and without waving the foregoing objections, Go Daddy responds as follows: 7 The reference to “External Domains” in the document Bates-numbered PET GD 2469 8 indicates that Go Daddy hosting customers can have traffic routed to Go Daddy-hosted websites 9 from domains registered elsewhere (not with Go Daddy) (“external domains”). Such routing is 10 the same as “routing/forwarding” as referenced in Go Daddy’s supplemental initial disclosures. 11 Go Daddy does not provide any services for the external domains themselves. 12 13 14 Persons with relevant knowledge include Jeff Munson and John Roling. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Please state when GoDaddy first began providing the domain name forwarding service to 15 which it refers in Paragraph 29 of its Amended Answer June 20, 2011 to any customer and 16 identify all persons with knowledge of the foregoing and describe all documents related to the 17 foregoing. 18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 19 20 In addition to the General Objections, Go Daddy objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and harassing. 21 Subject to and without waving the foregoing objections, Go Daddy responds as follows: 22 Go Daddy first began providing domain name forwarding services on April 3, 2001. 23 Persons with relevant knowledge include George Kearns 24 25 Dated: October 19, 2011 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 26 By: 27 . John L. Slafsky David L. Lansky Hollis Beth Hire 28 GO DADDY’S RESPONSE TO THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 21-25) Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH ~7~ APP016 4534112_2.DOCX APP017 APP017.1 APP017.2 APP017.3