ll 1 RICHARD HARRINGTON (SBN 28099) `
CHANDLER WOOD HARRINGTON & MAFPLY LLP
2 One Maritime Plaza, Fourth Floor
San Francisco, California 94111 3404
3 Telephone: 415 421 5484
I Facsimile: 415 986 4874
4 Email: [email protected]
5 ROBERT CHARLES WARD (SBN 160824)
SHARTSIS FRIESE LLP ,
6 One Maritime Plaza, Eighteenth Floor l
San Francisco, California 94111 3404
_7 Telephone: 415 421 6500
Facsimile: 415 421 2922
8 Email: rwardf2l‘Z2a§law*.eemt . V
9 C. ANGELA DE LA HOUSAYE (SBN 144218)
BRENDAN J. DOOLEY (SBN 162880)
10 KARYNE T. GI-IANTOUS (SBN 191309)
DE LA HOUSAYE & ASSOCIATES, ALC
11 1655 N. Main Street, Suite 395
Walnut Creek, California 94596 ·
12 Telepiflonez _ (925) 944-3300
Facsimile: (925) 944-3343
1 3 Email: Ziiigéil3.(@>.Cl€1£1l10`L`tSE&VCl,El\?*.l.CO1K1.
btet1da1t@c1elahoasave»law:.eear
14 _ l
_ ANDREW VERITY AND CHRISTINA CHANG
16
17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
` 18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
20
21 MARK LILLGE D/B/A CREATIVE Case No: C~07-02748 MHP
,,,1 MARKETING CONCEPTS, )
*4 ) DECLARATION OF ROBERT CHARLES
,,,, PlantiftQ ` ) WARD IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
*4 ` ) COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO A
l ,,4 v. ) DISCOVERY
‘ )
ANDREW VERITY AND CHRISTINA CHANG,) Date: i
25 ) Time: 2:00 pm. U
d. · _ ) Dept: Courtroom 15, 18 ]Floor
26 Dcfm ams ) Judge: Hon. Marilyn I-I, Patel ,
21 I Complaint Filed: May 25, 2007
78 - ` 1`rialDate: None Set
, ` -1- Case No. C-07-02748 MHP l
DECLARATION OF ROBERT CHARLES WARD IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO DISCOVERY
Case 3:07-cv-02748-I\/IHP Document 150-4 Filed O3/26/2008 Page 2 of 3
1 I, ROBERT CHARLES WARD, declare as follows:
2 l. I am a Partner with the Law Firm of Shartsis Friese, LLP, licensed to practice before all the
3 courts in the State of California, and am the attorney of record for Plaintiffs Andrew Verity ("Verity")
4 and Christina Chang (“Chang"). I have personal knowledge of all facts stated herein and if called to
5 testify, could and would competently do so.
6 2. The Court explicitly stated at the hearing on Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction that
7 Plaintiff Lillge had not shown a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the question of whether Plaintiff
8 had the trade secrets that he claims. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the
9 Court’s order. Exhibit A, p. 9, lns. 26-28; p. 10, lns. 1-2; p. 10, Ins. 21-23. Attached hereto as Exhibit B
l0 is a copy of Plaintiff s Identification of Trade Secrets dated June l, 2007.
ll 3. Since the injunction was granted, Plaintiff has failed to identify with requisite specificity
12 legally cognizable trade secrets, as he is obligated to do under California Code of Civil Procedure
13 section 2019.210. In a series of interrogatories, Defendant Chang asked Lillge to "state all facts" in
14 support of each of the categories of information that Plaintiff contends are trade secrets. Attached hereto
15 as Exhibit B1 is a true and correct copy of Defendants Interrogatories.
16 4. In response to the interrogatories, Plaintiff restated general contentions about the trade
17 secrets that are little more than copied language from his Complaint. Attached hereto as Exhibit C are
18 true and correct copies of Plaintiff s Responses to Interrogatories. As part of attempting to meet and
19 confer over the inadequate information provided regarding the supposed trade secrets, counsel for
20 Plaintiff agreed only to provide documents and did not agree to provide any further specificity with
21 regard to identifying, describing or elaborating on what Plaintiff contends is and is not a trade secret.
22 Plaintiff has produced thousands of pages of documents, which appear to comprise mostly the customer
23 files for the business. Almost all of these documents have been designated "confidential-attorneys eyes
24 only," despite most of these documents being mundane information that Plaintiff could not possible
25 assert as a trade secret. Furthermore, by designating the documents attorneys eyes only, and failing to
26 provide satisfactory interrogatory responses, Plaintiff is leaving it to counsel for Defendants to wade
27 through tens of thousands of documents to attempt to figure out what Plaintiff contends is a trade secret.
28 Further efforts to meet and confer regarding the issues described above have proved fruitless.
-2- Case N0. C-07-02748 MHP
’ Case 3:07#cv—02748-I\/II—lP Document 150-4 Filed 03/26/2008 Page 3 of 3
A A l 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are true and correct copies of relevant parts of the Deposition of
2 Mark Lillge (Volume III) taken on February 12, 2008, in which the Plaintiff refused to testify and/or
3 provide documents related to Defendant Verity’s termination. Subsequent efforts to Meet and Confer
. 4 regarding this topic were to no avail. c `
5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe United States of America that the
6 foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 14th day of March 2008 at San Francisco, California.
7 V 4
V 9 c ROBERT CHARLES WARD
1.0
ll _ A . A
I2 _
l3 V
14
E5 A A
E6 in
l7
i 8
19 .
20
2i
22
23 V
24 A
25 . V A
26 V
27 c ‘
·3· _ Case No. 007-02748 MHP
Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP
Document 150-4
Filed 03/26/2008
Page 1 of 3
Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP
Document 150-4
Filed 03/26/2008
Page 2 of 3
Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP
Document 150-4
Filed 03/26/2008
Page 3 of 3
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms