Bradley v. Google, Inc. et al Doc.

19
Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA Document 19 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 1 of 7

1 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP

ASHOK RAMANI - #200020
2 ANDREW SHEN - #232499
710 Sansome Street
3 San Francisco, CA 94111-1704
Telephone: (415) 391-5400
4 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188

5 Attorneys for Defendants

GOOGLE, INC., GOOGLE ADSENSE
6

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11

12 THERESA B. BRADLEY, Psy.D./JD, Case No. C-06-05289- WHA

13 Plaintiff, JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
14 v.
Date: November 30, 2006
15 GOOGLE, INC., GOOGLE AD SENSE, Time: 8:00 a.m.
Dept: Courtroom 9
16 Defendants. Judge: The Hon. Wiliam H. Alsup
17 Date Compo Filed: September 12,2006

18 Trial Date: TBD

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
? .
26

27

?R

1
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
385306.01 CASE NO. C-06-05289-WHA

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA Document 19 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 2 of 7

1 I. TOPICS IN COURT'S SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER

2 The parties provide the following statements on the subjects that they believe would be

3 designated in Paragraph 2 of the Cour's Supplemental Order ("Order") filed September 14,2006
4 (Document 9 in the Court's file)l:
A. Jurisdiction and venue
5

6 This Court has subject-matterjurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. The
7 paries know of no issue regarding personal jurisdiction or venue.
B. Claims. defenses. and related proceedin2s
8

9 Dr. Bradley's Claims and Defenses:

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 GoogIe's Claims and Defenses: Google has moved to dismiss Dr. Bradley's complaint,

23 with a hearing date presently scheduled for December 21. Thus, Google has not yet answered
24 the Complaint; should the Court allow Dr. Bradley to proceed on her Complaint, Google wil
25 answer and evaluate any potential counterclaim(s).

26 Related proceedings: There are no "Related Cases" as defined in L.R. 3-l2(a).

27
lGoogle has not received the order from Dr. Bradley, who never received it from the Court.
?R

2
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
385306.01 CASE NO. C-06-05289-WH
 Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA Document 19 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 3 of 7

c. Brief summary of proceedin2s to date

1

2 Dr. Bradley fied her Amended Complaint on September 12, 2006. The parties stipulated
3 to extend Google's time to respond until November 16,2006, on which date Google filed its'
4 pending motion to dismiss. During the week of November 13, counsel for Google attempted to
5 meet and confer with Dr. Bradley under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 26(f); Dr. Bradley and

6 counsel for Google succeeded in doing so on November 20,2006. The parties stipulated to
7 extend the time to exchange initial-disclosure documents required by Federal Rule of Civil

8 Procedure 26(a) by 46 days, to January 29, 2007.

D. Pendin2 motions
9

10 On November 16, 2006, Google fied a motion to dismiss Dr. Bradley's complaint; the
11 motion is set for hearing on December 21. On November 20,2006, Dr. Bradley mailed to the
12 Cour her motion to appear via telephone at the November 30 case-management conference.
E. Brief description of major motions before trial
13

14 Should the Court not grant Google' s pending motion to dismiss, Google intends to move

15 for summary judgment on Dr. Bradley's complaint. Dr. Bradley does not intend to file any
16 motions.
F. Additional parties
17

18 At this time, neither side expects paries to be added or deleted.

G. Expected claim-construction. evidentiary. or class-certification hearin2s
19

20 This is neither a patent nor class-action case. Short of motions in limine and potential

21 discovery disputes, the parties anticipate no evidentiary hearings.

H. Compliance with evidence-preservation requirements
22

23 Dr. Bradley believes that Google has destroyed evidence as set forth in the Amended

24 Complaint Counts VI, VII, VIII that has interfered with the Plaintiff s burden of proof of
25 communications by electronic mail concernng the allegations set forth Amended Complaint
26 Counts I, II, III, IV, V by destruction of evidence as set forth in the Amended Complaint by
27 interference with private e-Mail account held by the Plaintiff at Google, Inc. known as
?R

3
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
385306.01 CASE NO. C-06-05289-WH
 Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA Document 19 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 4 of 7

1 tbrava§gmai1.com by intentional intrusion into the e-Mail account and intentional destrction

2 and/or deletion of all e-Mail communications concernng the Google AdSense account.

3
I. Stipulated discovery limits
4

5 Neither Dr. Bradley nor Google believes that this case requires any departure from the

6 Federal Rules.
J. Proposed deadlines and court dates. includin2 a trial date
7

8 The parties propose the following case schedule:

9 Event Date
10 Close of fact discovery June 1, 2007

11 Close of expert discovery (if any) June 29, 2007

12 Summary judgment fiing deadline July 26, 2007

13 Pretrial conference 21 days prior to trial

14 Trial date October 29, 2007

15

16 The parties expect the trial to last no more than three Cour days.
K. Whether a jurv was properly demanded
17

18 Dr. Bradley has not requested a jury. Google has not yet answered, and has not decided

19 if it will request a jury.

L. What dama2es and other relief are sou2ht
20

21 Dr. Bradley's request for damages and other relief is fully set forth in the Amended

22 Complaint Counts I through VIII.

23
M. ADR efforts to date and a specifc ADR plan for the case
24

25 The parties have conferred about ADR procedures and agree that court-ordered mediation

26 is the likely procedure to assist settlement. Dr. Bradley wil request that the Cour order the

27 paries to court-ordered mediation as soon as possible. Google respectfully suggests that the

?R

4
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
385306.01 CASE NO. C-06-05289-WH
 Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA Document 19 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 5 of 7

1 Court order the parties to engage in ADR only should the Court not grant Google's motion to
2 dismiss.
N. Ma2istrate-Jud2e assi2nment
3

4 Dr. Bradley failed timely to submit her consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge, but

5 would be fine to so proceed now. Google is fine with such assignment.

o. Service list
6
For Dr. Bradley:
7
Theresa B. Bradley
8
ww.bravacorp.com
4500 Connecticut Avenue NW #309
9 Washington, DC 20008
Phone 202-537-2969
10
For Google:
11 Ashok Ramani
Andrew Shen
12 Keker & Van Nest, LLP
710 Sansome Street
13 San Francisco, CA 94111-5400
Telephone: (415) 391-5400
14 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
Email: axr§kvn.com
15 ashen§kvn.com
16 P. Other items in Local Civil Rule 16-10

17
Except as set fort above, the parties propose that the matters specified in Civil Local
18
Rule 16-10(b) be scheduled in accordance with the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil
19
Procedure, and the Guidelines for Trial and Final Pretrial Conference in civil jury cases before
20
the Honorable Wiliam Alsup.
21 II. PROTECTIVE ORDER
22
The paries have conferred, per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), about the
23
desirability of a protective order. Google doubts that this case would implicate its trade secrets
24
or proprietary information; to the extent that it does, the parties wil try and stipulate to a
25
procedure restricting disclosure of confidential information to outside counsel and third-pary
26
experts who execute an appropriate undertaking. Should the parties fail to reach resolution,
27
Google wil seek the Court's direction.
?R

5
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
385306.01 CASE NO. C-06-05289-WH
 Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA Document 19 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 6 of 7

1 Dr. Bradley does not anticipate that this case wil entail any request or invasion of either

2 party's trade secrets of her company, Brava Corporation or of Google, Inc. or Google Adsense.
3
DATED: November 30, 2006 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
4

5
By /s/ Andrew Shen
6 Ashok Ramani
Andrew Shen
7 Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC.
8 DATED: November 26,2006
9

10 By r hee; 8. 8rad(Original signature CMC

fied with Court)
11
Dr. Theresa P.Bradley
12
Pro Se Plaintiff

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
?R

6
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
385306.01 CASE NO. C-06-05289-WH
 Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA Document 19 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 7 of 7

1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California in the office of a
member of the bar of this cour at whose direction the following service was made. I am over the
3 age of eighteen years and not a pary to the within action. My business address is Keker & Van
Nest, LLP, 710 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California 94111.
4

5 On November 30, 2006, I served the following document:

6 Joint Case Management Conference Statement

7 by regular UNITED STATES MAIL by placing a true and correct copy in a sealed envelope
addressed as shown below. I am readily familiar with the practice of Keker & Van Nest, LLP for
8 collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. According to that practice, items are
deposited with the United States Postal Service at San Francisco, California on that same day
9
with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am aware that, on motion of the party served, service is
10 presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or the postage meter date is more than one day
after the date of deposit for mailing stated in this affdavit; and
11
by EMAIL, by transmitting a true and correct copy in PDF format to the email address below.
12
Theresa B. Bradley
13
4500 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 309
14 Washington, DC 20008
Email: bravacorp§yahoo.com
15
Executed on November 30,2006, at San Francisco, California.
16
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is tre
17 and correct.

18

19 .r d w :74: ~ GA
20 Robert W. Thomas

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28