Preview
TABLE CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................
FACTUAL PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND................................................
Terminated Agreement Yahoo
Brought Owes ................................
Yahoo Alleges Terminated Strategic
..........................................................................................................
Mozilla Cross-Complaint Breaches Contract
Affirmative Rely Allegations Failed
Meet Certain Contractual Requiring Search ..........................
Yahoo Refuses Produce Documents Responsive
......................................................................................................
Mozilla Faith Meet Parties
Reached Impasse................................................................................
ARGUMENT
Compel Documents
Refuses ........................................................................................
Documents responsive Request
relevant Yahoo claim Mozilla exercise
terminate was Mozilla
reasonable
documents relevant Yahoo interpretation
Strategic Agreement..........................................................................
documents relevant claims defenses
regarding Yahoo failure
requirements Yahoo claims
resolve dispute............
Objections Asserted Discovery Response
Refusal Documents.........................................
Requested
Relying Documents
Refusing Produce............................................................................
CONCLUSION
ttorneys
DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL;
CASE I7-CV-3I992I
TABLE AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
McNamara,
Cal. 74(1989).........
Emps. Kinyon,
Cal.
America,
Cal.
Cal.
Furniture
Cal. ................
Proc.
Proc. 2031.310(b)(1)
Procedure 2031.310(b)(2)
rowell -11-
ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL;
CASE
MEMORANDUM POINTS AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Cross-Defendant Marketing
refused requests production directly
relevant allegations Defendant Cross-Complainant Mozilla Corporation
Mozilla claims defenses, notwithstanding clear relevance Mozilla requests
production. refusal produce documents primarily its faulty
documents irrelevant, alleging Mozilla
understanding contents) terminated Strategic between
parties, documents are not relevant case light
parties allegations theories.
narrowly construes relevance. Mozilla agrees
Mozilla beliefs relevant determining whether control
Strategic Agreement properly exercised. However, position
documents Mozilla possession Mozilla terminated
Strategic Agreement possibly existence Mozilla beliefs,
reasonableness beliefs, simply wrong. control provision allowed
Mozilla terminate Strategic Agreement either
Mozilla Cross-Complaint “Cross-Compl.
(Strategic Agreement) Section 9.1.1.(b)(ii) (previously filed December
(hereinafter. Strategic Agreement referred change
control provision Mozilla entitled discovery possession
fact Mozilla actually required belief
reasonableness Mozilla beliefs. Furthermore, responsive
requests clearly relevant claims defenses case apart from
LLP
ttokneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL;
CASE I7-CV-3I992I
control
compel should following
Mozilla produce these because they
are relevant following reasons:
Yahoo alleges Mozilla beliefs exercising rights control
provision reasonable. Mozilla requests seek
are relevant contention Mozilla belief
reasonableness Mozilla belief;
alleges Mozilla purported required exercise its
termination rights. requested are relevant credibility
Mozilla claims beliefs required terminate Strategic
Agreement. Acquirer
information would credibility Mozilla
beliefs;
requested documents relevant interpretation
obligation
Strategic Agreement;
requested relevant Mozilla claims defenses regarding
claims
Mozilla attempted resolve dispute informally bringing this motion,
necessary compelling production documents.
Second, written discovery requests provide basis
withhold objections, which relevance, privilege,
ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL;
CASE
boilerplate unsupported factual basis.
Because documents
objections, respectfully seeks compelling Request
alternative, required documents
responsive preclude Yahoo document
responsive
FACTUAL PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mozilla Terminated Strategic Agreement Brought
breached contractual
dollars damages. Agreement entered between
was search Firefox
browser
would
Cross-
(Strategic Agreement) Attachment consideration
Mozilla Yahoo search
Cross-Compl.
permitted
Mozilla terminate agreement following Yahoo,
Yahoo search Taiwan
Agreement
LLP
ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL;
CASE
(Strategic Agreement) Section 9.1.1.(b)(ii).
November Mozilla exercised its rights control provision
terminated its default search Firefox. Cross-Compl. TITj
Despite clear contract language requiring
Alleges Mozilla Improperly Terminated Strategic Agreement.
Complaint, alleges Mozilla breached Strategic Agreement
terminating Strategic Agreement control provision.^ alleges
Mozilla terminated Strategic
Complaint
Compl.” 127(a).
description control provision allegations simply
inaccurate. control provision, terms, permits terminate
Agreement
Cross-Compl. (Strategic Agreement) Section
Compl. 27(c).
rowell
ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MPA MOTION COMPEL;
17-CV-3
9.1.1.(b)(ii) (emphasis
Regardless, directly challenged reasonableness credibility Mozilla
beliefs allegations.
Mozilla Brought Cross-Complaint Multiple Breaches Contract
Affirmative Defenses Allegations Failed
Certain Contractual Requiring Search Quality.
response, Mozilla filed Cross-Complaint alleging breached Strategic
Agreement
Cross-Compl.
Mozilla Answer Complaint, Mozilla asserted several affirmative defenses
rely failure its contractual obligations, including failing
Mozilla Answer (Fifth Affirmative Defense (Failure
Contractual Obligations Material Breach); Affirmative Defense (Prevention
Performance); Affirmative Defense (Frustration Purpose); Tenth Affirmative Defense
(Unclean
Refuses Produce Documents Responsive Request
Based pleadings claims defenses asserted parties, Mozilla
first requests production February Declaration Kristin
Madigan filed concurrently herewith “Madigan
responded March Mozilla document requests objecting
40-41 refusing responsive documents. Madigan
agreed produce documents
responsive request. (agreeing
“documents responsive this STRATEGIC
LLP
ttorneys
DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL;
NO. I7-CV-3I992I
AGREEMENT otherwise objecting Request YAHOO
ACQUISITION relevant MOZILLA
terminated STRATEGIC AGREEMENT understanding
documents concerning were
possession, custody, purported termination Accordingly,
Request concerning YAHOO ACQUISITION calculated
discovery evidence.”
Requests following categories documents:
relating Yahoo Acquirer Yahoo brands,
effect demand Yahoo Search
effect Data breaches
relating Yahoo Acquirer roadmaps.
proposals, strategies, relating
Search;
solicitation investors acquirers;
prospective
relating Search Agreement;
accountants, relating
potential
relating practices Yahoo
relating Internet, privacy, security,
information advertising marketing;
Documents Yahoo Yahoo Acquirer
relating Yahoo Yahoo Data Breaches.
bases refusal primarily
documents, contain, were possession,
termination Strategic Agreement relevant.
LLP
ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL;
CASE NO. I7-CV-3I992I
objected boilerplate objections, privilege
Mozilla Faith Effort Meet Parties
Reached Impasse.
Mozilla assertion produce documents
confer process reached impasse. Mozilla confer
process with April letter setting forth deficiencies
responses. Madigan Mozilla attempted conference
where parties those issues, agree confer
Madigan however, agreed extend deadline
Mozilla motion further responses from
Eventually, confer telephonically, parties multiple
conversations discussing responses. Madigan parties
resolve with responses. Decl.
however, refused its position regard
confirmed parties are impasse. Madigan Decl. respect
initially indicated willing position
respect producing Directors materials concerning Acquisition,
further information accepted Mozilla extend weeks, from
parties
time
Exists Production Documents
Refuses Produce.
Documents responsive Request 12-28 40-41 relevant
Mozilla its rights terminate
Strategic Agreement Mozilla reasonable belief
belief.
documents Mozilla seeks requirement discovery “relevant
subject matter involved action determination
that action, matter itself admissible reasonably calculated
rowell
oring
ttorneys
DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL;
17-CV-3
discovery evidence. 2017.010.
further responses, Mozilla fact-specific
relevance. 2031.310(b)(1) (requiring compelling
production documents); Kirkland Cal.
Here, Yahoo because
Yahoo Mozilla Agreement
terminated agreement
added).
Yahoo description change inaccurate. Strategic
Agreement Mozilla decision
fact, provision, Mozilla
Strategic Agreement
Cross-Compl. (Strategic
Section
reasonable conviction
inference, attendant circumstances, creating
entertained emphasis Gov. Kinyon,
App. (insurance concerning “reasonable
subjective standard determining
rowell
ttokneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL;
17-CV-3
are relevant Mozilla
properly terminated Strategic Agreement. relevant inquiry concerns
here, need determine whether Mozilla
understanding applies determine documents
refuses produce clearly several reasons.
alleges Mozilla beliefs reasonable. Mozilla
must able basis contention Mozilla belief reasonable,
documents possession relevant determining whether Mozilla beliefs
reasonable. example, requested
shared beliefs regarding impact
would clearly determining reasonableness Mozilla beliefs.
context, remain relevant, beliefs substitute
Mozilla Austin McNamara, (analyzing impact
third party report conclusions determining whether defendants requisite reasonable
belief reasonable effort making their disciplining doctor).
alleges Mozilla purported belief necessary
exercise its terminate Strategic Agreement control provision.
Compl. 33(b). possession likely support credibility
Mozilla claims required terminate contract reasons.
Yahoo information reflecting Mozilla fact
beliefs, documents actually correct believing
Evidence
credibility Mozilla claims
rowell
LLP
ttokneys
DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL;
CASE
beliefs (and contradict allegations Mozilla beliefs).
specifically, seek documents
Acquirer documents Acquirer beliefs
similar Mozilla. example, effect acquiring
Acquirer brand, particularly discuss effects, will refute
argument Mozilla belief unreasonable. Moreover, information
documents Acquirer negatively impact
consumer Search, information credibility Mozilla
assertions believed
breaches
effect Acquirer documents are relevant because
effect brand, result,
Acquirer brand, reasonableness credibility Mozilla beliefs
terminate agreement. negative Acquirer
brand, Acquirer inability reputational concerns resulting
from breaches, relevant determining credibility Mozilla belief
would similarly negatively particularly because Mozilla brand built
protecting its Mozilla Manifesto, Principle https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/about/manifesto/ChidividuaW security privacy internet fundamental
treated optional Furthermore, documents discussing Acquirer
negative effects breaches contradict
argument Mozilla belief reasonable.
21-22 Acquirer
policies relating internet, improve
Search. clearly relevant determining
relevant assessing credibility Mozilla belief
-10-
oring LLP
ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL;
CASENO.
particularly that
deprioritizing failing prepare improving Search.
seek documents sale process, marketing
acquisition, Acquirer related communications
regulators. include information relating categories,
including, example, information relevant
documents information supporting
credibility beliefs control provision.
seeks documents provided prospective investors, financial advisers,
analyses liabilities relating Search. Madigan
pp. Similarly, seeks documents provided Acquirer
Directors relating Acquisition.^
extent those documents reflect would
credence Mozilla beliefs
documents relevant interpretation
Strategic Agreement.
Yahoo also are relevant
interpretation Strategic Agreement obligations example,
requests regarding process, marketing related
communications with regulators are likely elicit information
interpretation control obligations
Strategic Agreement interpretation
forth documents responsive portion
Madigan
rowell
ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL;
CASE 17-CV-319921
documents likely information Yahoo Acquirer
aware responded Mozilla complaints
regarding Yahoo search failure contractual
under law,
Procedure 2017.010, Yahoo responses
documents requests.
documents relevant defenses
regarding meet themi^^^^^^
requirements contract
Request relevant action
compelled reason.
defense seeking
2017.010.
Cross-Compl.
Answer Defense (Prevention Performance);
Affirmative Defense (Frustration Purpose)). Yahoo Mozilla
Documents Yahoo
contractual because Yahoo Yahoo Acquirer
thereof) Search strategy. Documents Request
concerning Yahoo representations Yahoo Acquirer)
Yahoo Agreement, Yahoo investment
search strategy, Yahoo about performance regard
search, Agreement, Similarly, documents responsive
Request Yahoo
rowell
ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL;
CASE
related defenses. Despite Yahoo arguments contrary,
potential advisers, regulators likely include
relevant Yahoo Search Agreement Yahoo
Mozilla performance Strategic Agreement), because Strategic
Agreement
documents responsive requests, Yahoo
preclude Mozilla breach contract claims defending Yahoo
discovery enhance
litigation eliminate trial strategies gamesmanship Juarez
Scouts America, Cal. (quotations and citation
omitted). discovery process designed trial “less
with issues practicable
Yahoo refusal documents response
prevents facts case contradicts
seeking
Mozilla effort resolve
attempt issues
Procedure section Madigan
Despite efforts, refused responsive
Request Madigan
indicated willing respect Board
Directors materials concerning Acquisition,
information accepted weeks,
Request parties
Having demonstrated cause, Mozilla respectfully requests
documents responsive requests.
ttokneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL;
CASE NO. 17-CV-3
Objections Asserted Discovery Response
Support Refusal Documents.
Mozilla justifying seeks,
justify asserted Mozilla discovery
Yahoo cannot objections. Kirkland
Cal. “Once cause [responding
justify Yahoo responded number
boilerplate General Objections'' objections specific
requests. addressed individually Statement,
basis.
Relevance. specifically Mozilla Request
because seek claim defense
reasonably calculated admissible same
Mozilla discovery, lacks
Attorney-Client Privilege. objected Request Nos.
attorney-client attorney Yahoo
foundational assertion attorney-client privilege
protection attorney-client product protection
implicated. example, withholding communications between counsel
Acquirer pertaining attorney-
Mozilla evaluate
Overbreadth Burden. Yahoo objected Mozilla Request
grounds were overly burdensome. Yahoo provide
factual objections based overbreadth Yahoo
Madigan Deck objection
Yahoo asserted thirteen General Objections Requests
indicated withholding
rowell
LLP
ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL;
CASE 17-CV-3
justified where compliance request would result injustice producing
burden demonstrated result injustice.” points
Equally Accessible Mozilla. objected Mozilla
ground requests information
accessible Mozilla contrary, Mozilla access
documents, internal communications, communications with third parties pertaining
Mozilla. objection evidence authorities.
objections merit, Mozilla respectfully
produce non-privileged, responsive documents.
Requested Documents
Should Precluded Relying Documents
Refusing Produce.
Should require provide further responses, refuses
produce documents responsive Request preclude
from relying trial requests
trial fair contest with basic facts disclosed
fullest practicable extent. permitted
its picked remaining
from
CONCLUSION
The should Mozilla order provide further responses
produce responsive Request 40-41 within order.
Dated: &^ORlNG
Gregory Call
Kuwahara
Kristin
Attorneys Cross-Complainant
MOZILLA CORPORATION
rowell
ttor
DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA COMPEL;
CASE 17-CV-31992I
Preview
TABLE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ FACTUAL PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND................................................ Terminated Agreement Yahoo Brought Owes ................................ Yahoo Alleges Terminated Strategic .......................................................................................................... Mozilla Cross-Complaint Breaches Contract Affirmative Rely Allegations Failed Meet Certain Contractual Requiring Search .......................... Yahoo Refuses Produce Documents Responsive ...................................................................................................... Mozilla Faith Meet Parties Reached Impasse................................................................................ ARGUMENT Compel Documents Refuses ........................................................................................ Documents responsive Request relevant Yahoo claim Mozilla exercise terminate was Mozilla reasonable documents relevant Yahoo interpretation Strategic Agreement.......................................................................... documents relevant claims defenses regarding Yahoo failure requirements Yahoo claims resolve dispute............ Objections Asserted Discovery Response Refusal Documents......................................... Requested Relying Documents Refusing Produce............................................................................ CONCLUSION ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL; CASE I7-CV-3I992I TABLE AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases McNamara, Cal. 74(1989)......... Emps. Kinyon, Cal. America, Cal. Cal. Furniture Cal. ................ Proc. Proc. 2031.310(b)(1) Procedure 2031.310(b)(2) rowell -11- ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL; CASE MEMORANDUM POINTS AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Cross-Defendant Marketing refused requests production directly relevant allegations Defendant Cross-Complainant Mozilla Corporation Mozilla claims defenses, notwithstanding clear relevance Mozilla requests production. refusal produce documents primarily its faulty documents irrelevant, alleging Mozilla understanding contents) terminated Strategic between parties, documents are not relevant case light parties allegations theories. narrowly construes relevance. Mozilla agrees Mozilla beliefs relevant determining whether control Strategic Agreement properly exercised. However, position documents Mozilla possession Mozilla terminated Strategic Agreement possibly existence Mozilla beliefs, reasonableness beliefs, simply wrong. control provision allowed Mozilla terminate Strategic Agreement either Mozilla Cross-Complaint “Cross-Compl. (Strategic Agreement) Section 9.1.1.(b)(ii) (previously filed December (hereinafter. Strategic Agreement referred change control provision Mozilla entitled discovery possession fact Mozilla actually required belief reasonableness Mozilla beliefs. Furthermore, responsive requests clearly relevant claims defenses case apart from LLP ttokneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL; CASE I7-CV-3I992I control compel should following Mozilla produce these because they are relevant following reasons: Yahoo alleges Mozilla beliefs exercising rights control provision reasonable. Mozilla requests seek are relevant contention Mozilla belief reasonableness Mozilla belief; alleges Mozilla purported required exercise its termination rights. requested are relevant credibility Mozilla claims beliefs required terminate Strategic Agreement. Acquirer information would credibility Mozilla beliefs; requested documents relevant interpretation obligation Strategic Agreement; requested relevant Mozilla claims defenses regarding claims Mozilla attempted resolve dispute informally bringing this motion, necessary compelling production documents. Second, written discovery requests provide basis withhold objections, which relevance, privilege, ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL; CASE boilerplate unsupported factual basis. Because documents objections, respectfully seeks compelling Request alternative, required documents responsive preclude Yahoo document responsive FACTUAL PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mozilla Terminated Strategic Agreement Brought breached contractual dollars damages. Agreement entered between was search Firefox browser would Cross- (Strategic Agreement) Attachment consideration Mozilla Yahoo search Cross-Compl. permitted Mozilla terminate agreement following Yahoo, Yahoo search Taiwan Agreement LLP ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL; CASE (Strategic Agreement) Section 9.1.1.(b)(ii). November Mozilla exercised its rights control provision terminated its default search Firefox. Cross-Compl. TITj Despite clear contract language requiring Alleges Mozilla Improperly Terminated Strategic Agreement. Complaint, alleges Mozilla breached Strategic Agreement terminating Strategic Agreement control provision.^ alleges Mozilla terminated Strategic Complaint Compl.” 127(a). description control provision allegations simply inaccurate. control provision, terms, permits terminate Agreement Cross-Compl. (Strategic Agreement) Section Compl. 27(c). rowell ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MPA MOTION COMPEL; 17-CV-3 9.1.1.(b)(ii) (emphasis Regardless, directly challenged reasonableness credibility Mozilla beliefs allegations. Mozilla Brought Cross-Complaint Multiple Breaches Contract Affirmative Defenses Allegations Failed Certain Contractual Requiring Search Quality. response, Mozilla filed Cross-Complaint alleging breached Strategic Agreement Cross-Compl. Mozilla Answer Complaint, Mozilla asserted several affirmative defenses rely failure its contractual obligations, including failing Mozilla Answer (Fifth Affirmative Defense (Failure Contractual Obligations Material Breach); Affirmative Defense (Prevention Performance); Affirmative Defense (Frustration Purpose); Tenth Affirmative Defense (Unclean Refuses Produce Documents Responsive Request Based pleadings claims defenses asserted parties, Mozilla first requests production February Declaration Kristin Madigan filed concurrently herewith “Madigan responded March Mozilla document requests objecting 40-41 refusing responsive documents. Madigan agreed produce documents responsive request. (agreeing “documents responsive this STRATEGIC LLP ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL; NO. I7-CV-3I992I AGREEMENT otherwise objecting Request YAHOO ACQUISITION relevant MOZILLA terminated STRATEGIC AGREEMENT understanding documents concerning were possession, custody, purported termination Accordingly, Request concerning YAHOO ACQUISITION calculated discovery evidence.” Requests following categories documents: relating Yahoo Acquirer Yahoo brands, effect demand Yahoo Search effect Data breaches relating Yahoo Acquirer roadmaps. proposals, strategies, relating Search; solicitation investors acquirers; prospective relating Search Agreement; accountants, relating potential relating practices Yahoo relating Internet, privacy, security, information advertising marketing; Documents Yahoo Yahoo Acquirer relating Yahoo Yahoo Data Breaches. bases refusal primarily documents, contain, were possession, termination Strategic Agreement relevant. LLP ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL; CASE NO. I7-CV-3I992I objected boilerplate objections, privilege Mozilla Faith Effort Meet Parties Reached Impasse. Mozilla assertion produce documents confer process reached impasse. Mozilla confer process with April letter setting forth deficiencies responses. Madigan Mozilla attempted conference where parties those issues, agree confer Madigan however, agreed extend deadline Mozilla motion further responses from Eventually, confer telephonically, parties multiple conversations discussing responses. Madigan parties resolve with responses. Decl. however, refused its position regard confirmed parties are impasse. Madigan Decl. respect initially indicated willing position respect producing Directors materials concerning Acquisition, further information accepted Mozilla extend weeks, from parties time Exists Production Documents Refuses Produce. Documents responsive Request 12-28 40-41 relevant Mozilla its rights terminate Strategic Agreement Mozilla reasonable belief belief. documents Mozilla seeks requirement discovery “relevant subject matter involved action determination that action, matter itself admissible reasonably calculated rowell oring ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL; 17-CV-3 discovery evidence. 2017.010. further responses, Mozilla fact-specific relevance. 2031.310(b)(1) (requiring compelling production documents); Kirkland Cal. Here, Yahoo because Yahoo Mozilla Agreement terminated agreement added). Yahoo description change inaccurate. Strategic Agreement Mozilla decision fact, provision, Mozilla Strategic Agreement Cross-Compl. (Strategic Section reasonable conviction inference, attendant circumstances, creating entertained emphasis Gov. Kinyon, App. (insurance concerning “reasonable subjective standard determining rowell ttokneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL; 17-CV-3 are relevant Mozilla properly terminated Strategic Agreement. relevant inquiry concerns here, need determine whether Mozilla understanding applies determine documents refuses produce clearly several reasons. alleges Mozilla beliefs reasonable. Mozilla must able basis contention Mozilla belief reasonable, documents possession relevant determining whether Mozilla beliefs reasonable. example, requested shared beliefs regarding impact would clearly determining reasonableness Mozilla beliefs. context, remain relevant, beliefs substitute Mozilla Austin McNamara, (analyzing impact third party report conclusions determining whether defendants requisite reasonable belief reasonable effort making their disciplining doctor). alleges Mozilla purported belief necessary exercise its terminate Strategic Agreement control provision. Compl. 33(b). possession likely support credibility Mozilla claims required terminate contract reasons. Yahoo information reflecting Mozilla fact beliefs, documents actually correct believing Evidence credibility Mozilla claims rowell LLP ttokneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL; CASE beliefs (and contradict allegations Mozilla beliefs). specifically, seek documents Acquirer documents Acquirer beliefs similar Mozilla. example, effect acquiring Acquirer brand, particularly discuss effects, will refute argument Mozilla belief unreasonable. Moreover, information documents Acquirer negatively impact consumer Search, information credibility Mozilla assertions believed breaches effect Acquirer documents are relevant because effect brand, result, Acquirer brand, reasonableness credibility Mozilla beliefs terminate agreement. negative Acquirer brand, Acquirer inability reputational concerns resulting from breaches, relevant determining credibility Mozilla belief would similarly negatively particularly because Mozilla brand built protecting its Mozilla Manifesto, Principle https://www.mozilla.org/en- US/about/manifesto/ChidividuaW security privacy internet fundamental treated optional Furthermore, documents discussing Acquirer negative effects breaches contradict argument Mozilla belief reasonable. 21-22 Acquirer policies relating internet, improve Search. clearly relevant determining relevant assessing credibility Mozilla belief -10- oring LLP ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL; CASENO. particularly that deprioritizing failing prepare improving Search. seek documents sale process, marketing acquisition, Acquirer related communications regulators. include information relating categories, including, example, information relevant documents information supporting credibility beliefs control provision. seeks documents provided prospective investors, financial advisers, analyses liabilities relating Search. Madigan pp. Similarly, seeks documents provided Acquirer Directors relating Acquisition.^ extent those documents reflect would credence Mozilla beliefs documents relevant interpretation Strategic Agreement. Yahoo also are relevant interpretation Strategic Agreement obligations example, requests regarding process, marketing related communications with regulators are likely elicit information interpretation control obligations Strategic Agreement interpretation forth documents responsive portion Madigan rowell ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL; CASE 17-CV-319921 documents likely information Yahoo Acquirer aware responded Mozilla complaints regarding Yahoo search failure contractual under law, Procedure 2017.010, Yahoo responses documents requests. documents relevant defenses regarding meet themi^^^^^^ requirements contract Request relevant action compelled reason. defense seeking 2017.010. Cross-Compl. Answer Defense (Prevention Performance); Affirmative Defense (Frustration Purpose)). Yahoo Mozilla Documents Yahoo contractual because Yahoo Yahoo Acquirer thereof) Search strategy. Documents Request concerning Yahoo representations Yahoo Acquirer) Yahoo Agreement, Yahoo investment search strategy, Yahoo about performance regard search, Agreement, Similarly, documents responsive Request Yahoo rowell ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL; CASE related defenses. Despite Yahoo arguments contrary, potential advisers, regulators likely include relevant Yahoo Search Agreement Yahoo Mozilla performance Strategic Agreement), because Strategic Agreement documents responsive requests, Yahoo preclude Mozilla breach contract claims defending Yahoo discovery enhance litigation eliminate trial strategies gamesmanship Juarez Scouts America, Cal. (quotations and citation omitted). discovery process designed trial “less with issues practicable Yahoo refusal documents response prevents facts case contradicts seeking Mozilla effort resolve attempt issues Procedure section Madigan Despite efforts, refused responsive Request Madigan indicated willing respect Board Directors materials concerning Acquisition, information accepted weeks, Request parties Having demonstrated cause, Mozilla respectfully requests documents responsive requests. ttokneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL; CASE NO. 17-CV-3 Objections Asserted Discovery Response Support Refusal Documents. Mozilla justifying seeks, justify asserted Mozilla discovery Yahoo cannot objections. Kirkland Cal. “Once cause [responding justify Yahoo responded number boilerplate General Objections'' objections specific requests. addressed individually Statement, basis. Relevance. specifically Mozilla Request because seek claim defense reasonably calculated admissible same Mozilla discovery, lacks Attorney-Client Privilege. objected Request Nos. attorney-client attorney Yahoo foundational assertion attorney-client privilege protection attorney-client product protection implicated. example, withholding communications between counsel Acquirer pertaining attorney- Mozilla evaluate Overbreadth Burden. Yahoo objected Mozilla Request grounds were overly burdensome. Yahoo provide factual objections based overbreadth Yahoo Madigan Deck objection Yahoo asserted thirteen General Objections Requests indicated withholding rowell LLP ttorneys DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA MOTION COMPEL; CASE 17-CV-3 justified where compliance request would result injustice producing burden demonstrated result injustice.” points Equally Accessible Mozilla. objected Mozilla ground requests information accessible Mozilla contrary, Mozilla access documents, internal communications, communications with third parties pertaining Mozilla. objection evidence authorities. objections merit, Mozilla respectfully produce non-privileged, responsive documents. Requested Documents Should Precluded Relying Documents Refusing Produce. Should require provide further responses, refuses produce documents responsive Request preclude from relying trial requests trial fair contest with basic facts disclosed fullest practicable extent. permitted its picked remaining from CONCLUSION The should Mozilla order provide further responses produce responsive Request 40-41 within order. Dated: &^ORlNG Gregory Call Kuwahara Kristin Attorneys Cross-Complainant MOZILLA CORPORATION rowell ttor DEFENDANT CROSS-COMPLAINANT MOZILLA COMPEL; CASE 17-CV-31992I