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
GOOGLE’S OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE
CASE NO. 04-01497 RS
C:\NrPortbl\PALIB1\DAG\2657878_1.DOC
DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. 168452 (dkramer@wsgr.com)
DAVID L. LANSKY, State Bar No. 199952 (dlansky@wsgr.com)
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Telephone: (650) 493-9300
Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant
Google Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
DIGITAL ENVOY, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant/Counterclaimant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO.: C 04 01497 RS
GOOGLE INC.’S OBJECTION AND
MOTION TO STRIKE
“SUPPLEMENTAL” BRIEF
SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Date:
May 4, 2005
Time:
9:30 a.m.
Courtroom: 4, 5th Floor
Judge:
Hon. Richard Seeborg
)
Case 5:04-cv-01497-RS Document 158 Filed 05/13/2005 Page 1 of 5
Digital Envoy Inc., v. Google Inc.,
Doc. 158
Dockets.Justia.com
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
GOOGLE’S OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE
CASE NO. 04-01497 RS
-1-
C:\NrPortbl\PALIB1\DAG\2657878_1.DOC
INTRODUCTION
The day before and then shortly after the May 4, 2005 hearing on Google’s Motions for
Summary Judgment, Digital Envoy supplied the Court with an untimely and substantively
inadequate motion under Rule 56(f), asking the Court to continue the hearing. Google opposed
the 56(f) request at the hearing. Digital Envoy then indicated that it was withdrawing or at least
did not care about its 56(f) request. Google’s motions were then submitted for decision.1
Now, ten days later, as if to compound the impropriety of its untimely 56(f) request,
Digital Envoy has filed what it calls a “Supplemental Brief” ostensibly in support of the 5