KELLEY DRYE &
WARREN LLP
333 WEST
KELLEY DRYE &
WARREN LLP
333 WEST WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 2600
CHICAGO, IL 60606
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
Case No. C03-5340-JF
Defendant’s Reply Memorandum
ISO Motion to Enforce
- 2 -
DM_US\8302598.v1
Google’s Opposition confirms that it knowingly chose not to comply with the terms of
the Protective Order entered in this case. Google admits that it did not review the documents it
produced to American Blind for purposes of this case, and thus it did not designate the documents
produced in accordance with the Protective Order entered in this case. Nonetheless, Google
makes the incredible demand that American Blind review the production for compliance with the
Protective Order and then ask Google to redesignate documents to comply with the
confidentiality provisions of the Protective Order on a piecemeal basis. With over 110,000 pages
of documents in the production thus far, this proposal is onerous to say the least and demonstrates
Google’s bad faith.
I.
GOOGLE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PROTECTIVE ORDER.
Following the filing of this motion and its Opposition, Google admitted that its entire
document production was only in response to one of American Blind’s document requests,
Request No. 44, which sought all documents produced in Geico v. Google. (See Andelman Decl.,
Ex. A). Putting aside the fact that this admission reveals Google’s failure to produce documents
in response to the other 50 requests and 10 interrogatories for which it indicated it would produce
responsive documents, Google also admitted in its Opposition that it ignored the terms of the
Protective Order when it produced these documents. (Opp. at 4). According to Google, “[w]hen
Google produced to American Blind… 24 boxes and 10 CDs that it had reviewed, designated and
produced one year prior in Geico v. Google, it did not re-review them for the purpose of
reconsidering what type of confiden