Free Affidavit - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

· Case 1 :05-cv—OO866eJzJF Document 71 -4 Filed 12/1,4/2005 Page 1 of 2
Hellerlihrmantn
August 4 2005 I Michae1K.Plimack
. ’ [email protected]
Direct + l .4lS/772.6821
Direct Fax +l.4l5.772202l
Via E—moil Main +i.41s.rr2.6000
Fax +1.41s.m.626a
42102.000l
John B. Wyss, Esq. - ` .
Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP ` I
1776 K Street NW V
Washington, DC 20006
Re: Inline Connection Corp. v. Verizon Internet Services, Inc. et al.
Case N0. 2:05CV205 HCM
Dear John:
We have received your letter of August 3, 2005 conceming materials in the Delaware
case involving defendants AOL and Earthlink. _
As I believe Joel discussed with you today, and as you have requested, we will send a
letter to the Delaware defendants agreeing to allow them to send Inline confidential
deposition transcripts and interrogatory responses to Verizon provided that they provide us
with a list of what is being sent to you.
You also indicated the Delaware defendants intend to send you defendant-confidential
information. We have no objection to that as long as (1) the Delaware defendants provide to
us the bates number of such documents if the documents have already been produced in the
Delaware case, or if the documents have not been produced, copies of such documents, and
(2) the Delaware defendants have no objection to Inline's counsel in the Virginia case
receiving these documents. As you know, neither this firm nor our local counsel has signed
on to the Delaware protective order.
We must respond to your repeated insinuation that we have delayed providing
materials from the Delaware case. This is simply not accurate. Originally, you requested that
we provide materials from the Delaware case before the date the Court authorized for the
beginning of discovery. We responded that we would be willing to agree to a mutual, early
exchange of documents. We indicated the specific categories of "high priority" documents
we would like to receive. You did not bother to respond to this request, and instead moved to
stay discovery. Notwithstanding your lack of response to our proposal for a manual
exchange, you nonetheless have repeatedly alleged that we have refused voluntarily to
Heller Ehmtan LLP 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104-2878 www.hellerehm1an.com
Anchorage Beijing Hong Kong Los Angeles Madison. WI New York San Diego San Francisco Seattle
Silicon Valley Singapore Washington, D. C.

. t Case 1:05-cv-OO86QgJJF Document 71-4 Filed 12/@05 Page 2 of 2
John B. Wyss, Esq.
HellerEhrmani.tp I August "l;_2°°$
· age 2
produce the Delaware documents. You have continued to do so, notwithstanding that
Verizon has yet to produce any documents responsive to In1ine‘s properly served document
requests, which has required us to move to compel production. In contrast, we have
committed to producing documents responsive to Verizon's requests -— which include the
Delaware materials -- in advance of the date required under the Federal Rules. Moreover, we
intend to complete our document production by the end of the month. In light of this history,
I suggest you refrain from further allegations of delay on Inline‘s part.
' On a separate matter, if you would prefer that we produce documents in a particular
database format, e.g., Summation, Concordance, etc., please let me know no later than 5:00
p.m. EDT tomorrow. Otherwise, we will send a suite of load files corresponding to various
formats. Please produce Defendants documents to us in DBText format.
Sincerely,
Michael K. Plimack
cc: Steve E. Noona, Esq.
C. Joel Van Over, Esq.
Robert W. McFarland, Esq.