LAW OFFICES
REKER & VAN NEST
LLP
710 SANSOME STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-1704
TELEPHONE (415) 391-5400
FAX (415) 397-7188
WWW.KVN.COM
DARALYN J. DURIE
DDURIE&KVN.COM
April
S, 2007
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Joseph C. Spero
United States Distrct Court
Northern District of Californa
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Netjix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc., Case No. C-06-2361 WHA (JCS)
Dear Judge Spero:
Netflix submits this letter regarding a discovery issue. We regret that this submission is
unilateral, and we hope that the following adequately explains why we have been unable to
present a j oint submission.
Netflx's Position:
On February 16, 2007, Netflx sent a letter to Blockbuster noting that while Blockbuster
had produced certain presentations to the Blockbuster Board of
Directors regarding its online
service, Blockbuster had failed to produce the minutes of
those Board of
Director meetings. On
February 21,2007, Daralyn J. Dure and Eugene M. Paige traveled to Los Angeles for an in-
person meet and confer with Bil O'Brien at the office of
Blockbuster's counsel regarding these
documents. Blockbuster's counsel responded that hedid not know whether the Board minutes
had been produced, but would inquire.
On February 23,2007, counsel for Blockbuster sent counsel for Netflix a letter stating
that the process of gathering "responsive minutes is in progress" and that "(0 )btaining them,
reviewing them, and making any required redactions will take at least a few days." On March 2,
2007, counsel for Netfix wrote to counsel for Blockbuster, noting that any redaction of
the
Board minutes would have the effect of delaying their production and requesting confirmation
that "the only redactions Blockbuster wil make to these documents will be to preserve a claim of
privilege."
392873.01
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 176 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 1 of 7
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.
Doc. 176
Dockets.Justia.com
The Honorable Joseph C. Spero
April 5, 2007
Page 2
On March 9,2007, Blockbuster