Digital Envoy Inc., v. Google Inc., Doc.

369
Case 5:04-cv-01497-RS Document 369 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 1 of 3

1 DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. 168452 (dkramer@wsgr.com)

DAVID L. LANSKY, State Bar No. 199952 (dlansky@wsgr.com)
2 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
3 650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
4 Telephone: (650) 493-9300
Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
5
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant
6 Google Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

12 DIGITAL ENVOY, INC., ) CASE NO. C 04 01497 RS

)
13 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, ) DECLARATION OF HILARY
) WARE IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE
14 v. ) INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DIGITAL
) ENVOY’S MOTION TO COMPEL
15 GOOGLE INC., )
) Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg
16 Defendant/Counterclaimant. ) Courtroom: 4, 5th Floor
) Date: December 5, 2005
17 ) Time: 10:00 a.m.
)
18 )
)
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WARE DECL. ISO GOOGLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION 2760122_1.DOC

TO COMPEL
C 04 01497 RS
Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 5:04-cv-01497-RS Document 369 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 2 of 3

1 I, Hilary Ware, declare as follows:

2 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in the State of California. I am

3 commercial litigation counsel at Google Inc. (“Google”), the defendant and counterclaimant in

4 this action. One of my responsibilities is to oversee and coordinate Google’s response to

5 litigation discovery requests. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if

6 called as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto.

7 2. The document collection and production effort in this case was performed by

8 Google’s in house and outside counsel or at their explicit direction. Issues such as what methods

9 were to be employed to locate responsive documents, who was likely to possess responsive

10 documents, and what documents were, in fact, responsive to requests, all were determined by

11 counsel.

12 3. Following receipt of the Court’s Order concerning Digital Envoy’s document request

13 Nos. 18 and 19, Google conducted a thorough search for the documents called for by the requests

14 (as modified by the Order). The search consumed at least 51 hours of attorney, paralegal and IT

15 support time. All of the non-privileged documents located as a result of that process and called

16 for by the Order have been produced.

17 4. After reasonable and repeated inquiries over several months, I have determined to the

18 best of my abilities that Google has not undertaken any analysis of any measure of improvement

19 in performance of advertisements associated with geo-targeted vs. non-geotargeted

20 advertisements.

21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

22 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 14, 2005, at Mountain View, California.

23
/s/ Hilary Ware
24 Hilary Ware
25

26

27

28

WARE DECL. ISO GOOGLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION 2760122_1.DOC

-1-
TO COMPEL
C 04 01497 RS
 Case 5:04-cv-01497-RS Document 369 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 3 of 3

1 CERTIFICATION
2 I, David H. Kramer, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used

3 to file this DECLARATION OF HILARY WARE IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE INC.’S

4 OPPOSITION TO DIGITAL ENVOY’S MOTION TO COMPEL. In compliance with
5 General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that Hilary Ware has concurred in this filing.

7 DATED: November 14, 2005 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

Professional Corporation
8

10

11 By: /s/ David H. Kramer

David H. Kramer
12
Attorneys for Google Inc.
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WARE DECL. ISO GOOGLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION 2760122_1.DOC

-2-
TO COMPEL
C 04 01497 RS