motion to quash discovery - · pdf filemovant asks ths cour to quash the discovery and enter a...

L !r

Cause No. 07-07934-H

IN RE: PETITION OF M.P.,Requesting a Deposition of CorporateRepresentative for Google, Inc.,

§

§

§

§

§

¡,"j I..' ~i'.. r"" 'r "IN THE DISTRICT cotntTi t~., ...

", ~ r f

. 'r ~-~ .

OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS:!

160TH JUDiCiAL DISTRICT

MOTION TO QUASH DISCOVERYAND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT:

Movant "Doe" is a person affected by written discovery issued in this matter who hereby

specially appears for the sole purpose of moving to quash that discovery and for a protective

order under Rules 176.6, 192.6 & 202.3(b)(2), TEX. R. CIV. P., and would respectfully show as

follows:

I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND SUMMAY.

On August 2,2007, a two-page Rule 202 petition was filed in this cause under the initials

"M.P." Exhibit 1, attached. Petitioner alleges she is using initials, rather than her name, in order

to protect her privacy. ¡d. at 1.

The Petition sought to take the deposition of a corporate representative for Google, Inc.,

to discover "the names and addresses of entities and/or individuals who are hosting and posting

derogatory statements concernng M.P. on blogs1 hosted by Google." Exhbit 1 at 2. The

Petition states no further facts. It does not identify the Google b1ogs. It does not identify the

1 "Blog" is short for "web log," "a website where entries are written in chronological order and

commonly displayed in reverse chronological order." See htt://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog.

Many blogs provide commentar or news on a paricular subject; others function as morepersonal online diares. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs,web pages, and other media related to its topic. The abilty for readers to leave commentsin an interactive format is an important par of many blogs.

¡d.

allegedly "derogatory" statements. It does not allege any facts showing that any of the

unidentified derogatory statements are actionable libel, rather than constitutionally-protected

speech. Exhibit 1 at 1-2. On information and belief, M.P. made no effort to notify any person

hosting or posting on any Google blog of her Rule 202 Petition, such as posting to the blog itself

or otherwise.

On September 21, 2007, the Court issued an order authorizing M.P. to "serve discovery

on Goog1e seeking all information in Google's possession, custody, or control concernng the

identity of the entities and/or individuals responsible for posting derogatory statements regarding

M.P. on blogs hosted by Google and those responsible for such blogs." Exhibit 2, attached. The

Order did not identify any Google blogs or any allegedly derogatory statements, and it did not

make any findings that any Google blog contained any actionable libel of M.P. ¡d. On

information and belief, M.P. made no effort to notify any person hosting or posting on any

Google blog of the issuance of this Order.

Although M.P.'s Petition sought a deposition, on September 27, 2007, M.P.'s counsel

served Google with wrtten interrogatories and requests for production. Exhbits 3 and 4,

attached. This written discovery sought information and documents that "identifies, or that could

help to identify" the person (1) who created the account and Google blog located at

ww.dmccsucks.blogspot.com; (2) who posted a blog comment "MP must be stopped!"; (3)

who posted responses to that comment; and (4) who used a link on the blog to access the Del

Mar Countr Club's homepage. Id. Upon receipt of the discovery, Google gave notice via email

to the person who created the Google blog at issue.

Movant is the individual who created the Google account and blog at issue. The blog

permits persons who visit the site to add their own comments anonymously or pseudonymously.

MOTION TO QUASH - PAGE 2

Movant created the blog using a pseudonym in order to protect Movant's privacy and to avoid

threats and retaliation by persons who may disagree with the opinions expressed on the blog.

M.P. ' s anonymous Petition seeks, ironically, to reveal the identity of anonymous persons. Her

discovery on Google should be quashed.

First, M.P. did not meet Rule 202's requirements. M.P. did not provide the notice and

service required by Rule 202.3(a) & (b). Moreover, Rule 202's plain text only authorizes taking

a deposition to preserve testimony, not serving written interrogatories and requests for

production.

Second, Movant has a well-established First Amendment right to speak anonymously.

This right can be overcome only by a substantial showing of a cognizable legal claim and a

heightened need for the information sought. M.P.'s Rule 202 petition wholly failed to meet the

burden necessary to overcome this fudamental constitutional right.

Movant is affected by the discovery M.P. served on Google and therefore has standing to

seek an order quashing any discovery calculated to revealing Movant's identity. TEX. R. CIV. P.

192.6(a); 202.3(b)(2). Movant asks ths cour to quash the discovery and enter a protective order

precluding any compulsory discovery in this matter that identifies, or could help identity,

Movant's identity.

II. M.P.'s PETITION DID NOT COMPLY WITH RULE 202.

Rule 202 required that M.P., at least 15 days before the date of the hearng on the

petition, serve the Petition and notice of the hearng on all persons she sought to depose "and, if

suit is anticipated, on all persons petitioner expects to have interests adverse to petitioner's in the

anticipated suit." TEX. R. CIV. P. 202.3(a). The Rule permits service either according to Rule

21, TEX. R. CIV. P., or by publication on "(u)nnamed persons described in the petition whom the


petitioner expects to have interests adverse to petitioner's in the anticipated suit...." TEx. R.

Civ. P. 202.3(b)(1).

M.P.'s Petition clearly anticipates adverse interests: it seeks discovery in order to send

cease-and-desist demands "and/or for M.P. to potentially file claims against the responsible

individuals and/or entities." Exhibit 1 at 2. The record does not establish that M.P. complied

with any of these requirements: she did not personally serve Movant or serve Movant by

publication, nor did she make any other practical effort (such as the simple and effective means

of posting to the blog at issue) to notify Movant that she was seeking discovery from Google that

would reveal Movant's identity.

Moreover, Rule 202's plain language only permits "an order authorizing the takng of a

deposition on oral examination or written questions." TEX. R. CIV. P. 202.1. The Rule does not

permit the service of interrogatories or requests for production. "Neither by its language nor by

implication can we construe Rule 202 to authorize a tral cour, before suit is filed, to order any

form of discovery but deposition." ¡n re Akzo Nobel Chem., 24 S.W.3d 919, 921 (Tex. App. -

Beaumont 2000, orig. proceeding). M.P.'s sèrvice of interrogatories and requests for production

on Google are therefore without legal authorization.

Because M.P. did not comply with Rule 202's notice provisions, and because Rule 202

does not authorize service of interrogatories and requests for production, the wrtten discovery

served on Google should be quashed and a protective order entered.

III. THE FIRST AMNDMENT PROTECTS MOVANT DOE'S IDENTITY.

A. The First Amendment Protects Anonymous Speech.

Since the founding of our nation, anonymous speech has been a respected tradition. The

Federalist Papers were written by founding fathers Alexander Hamlton, James Madison and


John Jay, but were published pseudonymously under the name "Publius." The U.S. Supreme

Court has long held that the First Amendment protects not just the right to speak, but also the

right to speak anonymously. Watchtower Bible and Tract So. of New Yorkv. Vilage of Stratton,

536 U.S. 150, 166-67 (2002); Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found., 525 U.S. 182,

199-200 (1999); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm., 514 U.S. 334,341-42,356 (1995). See also

Doe v. State, 112 S.W.3d 532, 535 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) ("Freedom of speech includes the

right to engage in the dissemination of ideas without being publicly identified."). As the U.S.

Supreme Court has explained, despite "readers' curiosity" and "the public's interest" in an

author's identity,

an author is generally free to decide whether or not to disclose his or her tre identity.The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or officialretaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as muchof one's privacy as possible. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain

anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of apublication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.

McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 341-42.

First Amendment rights apply to speech on the Internet just as fully as other media. The

Supreme Court has made clear that there is "no basis for qualifyng the level of First Amendment

scrutiny that should be applied" to speech on the Internet. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870

(1997). This protection extends to anonymous speech. "(T)he constitutional rights of Internet

users, including the First Amendment right to speak anonymously, must be carefully

safeguarded." Doe v. 2themart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp.2d 1088, 1097 (W.D. Wash. 2001).

Accord, Doe v. Cahil, 884 A.2d 451, 33 Media Law Rep. 2441, 2443 (DeL. 2005) (First

Amendment protection "extends to anonymous internet speech").

People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other solong as those acts are not in violation of the law. This ability to speak one's mindwithout the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one's identity can foster


open communication and robust debate. . . . People who have committed no wrongshould be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass orembarass them can file a frvolous lawsuit and thereby gain the power of the court'sorder to discover their identities.

Columbia Insurance Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999).

The constitutional right to speak anonymously is not absolute, but as numerous courts

have held, the First Amendment does require the Court to act as a careful gatekeeper to ensure

that judicial process is not used to compel the disclosure of a speaker's identity, without proof of

a viable claim and proof that the information sought is necessary to pursue that claim. A court

order, even if granted for a private party, is state action and hence subject to constitutional

limitations. New York Times v. Sullvan, 376 U.S. 254, 265 (1964).

As the Delaware Supreme Court recognized, "there is reason to believe that many

defamation plaintiffs bring suit merely to unmask the identities of anonymous critics." Doe v.

Cahil, 884 A.2d 451, 33 Media Law Rep. 2441, 2444 (DeL. 2005). "If Internet users could be

stripped of ... anonymity by a civil subpoena enforced under the liberal rules of civil discovery,

this would have a significant chiling impact on Internet communications and thus on basic First

Amendment rights." Doe v. 2theMart.com, 140 F. Supp.2d at 1093.

To protect this important constitutional right, therefore, courts require a petitioner to meet

a signficant burden before compelling disclosure. For example, in a leading case on the issue,

the Court in Dendrite IntI., Inc. v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756, 29 Media Law Rep. 2265 (N.J. App.

2001), required the plaintiff to:

(1) undertake efforts to notify the anonymous poster that he is the subject of asubpoena or application of an order of disclosure, and to withhold action to affordthe anonymous defendant a reasonable opportnity to file and serve opposition tothe application;

(2) set forth the exact statements purportedly made by the anonymous poster that the

plaintiff alleges constitute defamatory speech;


(3) satisfy the prima facie or summar judgment standard of a libel claim; and

(4) show that the defendant's First Amendment right of free speech is outweighed bythe strength of the prima facie case presented and the necessity of the disclosureof the person's identity.

775 A.2d at 760-61.

Similarly, the Delaware Supreme Court held that the First Amendment requires a libel

plaintiff to first "make reasonable efforts to notify the defendant and () satisfy the summary

judgment standard" before obtaining compelled disclosure of the speaker's identity. Doe v.

Cahil, 884 A.2d 451, 33 Media Law Rep. 2441, 2444 (DeL. 2005). The Court recognized that

"setting the standard too low wil chil potential posters from exercising their First Amendment

right to speak anonymously." Id. Before being entitled to discover the identity of the poster of

an allegedly libelous statement, the plaintiff must introduce evidence creating a genuine issue of

material fact for all elements of a defamation claim within the plaintiffs control:

(1) the defendant made a defamatory statement;

(2) concernng the plaintiff;

(3) the statement was published;

(4) a third pary would understand the statement as defamatory; and

(5) the statement is false.

33 Media Law Rep. 2448-49.

Numerous courts have likewise recognzed that the First Amendment establishes a

heightened burden before the identity of an anonymous speaker may be compelled to be

disclosed. See, e.g., Doe v. 2theMart.com, 140 F. Supp.2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001) (granting

motion to quash subpoena because plaintiff failed to demonstrate, with evidence, that identity of

speakers was "directly and materially relevant to a core defense" in the litigation); Columbia


Insurance Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (requiring plaintiff to make

good faith effort to contact defendants to permit them to defend their anonymity, and requiring

plaintiff to demonstrate, with evidence, that it had viable claims); Sony Music Entertainment v.

Does 1-40,326 F. Supp.2d 556 (S.D.N.Y 2004) (permitting discovery of identity of music file-

sharers over First Amendment right to anonymity only after confirming that plaintiffs had

produced evidence of a prima facia case that defendants had infrnged plaintiffs' copyrghted

songs); Immunomedics, Inc. v. Doe, 775 A.2d 773, 776-77 (N.J. Super. 2001 (requiring plaintiff

to "make good-faith efforts to notify challenged posters; set forth the exact language that

allegedly constitutes actionable speech; provide evidence to make a prima facie case for its

claims; and show how the prima facie case outweighs the First Amendment right to

pseudonymous speech).

B. Petitioner "M.P." Has Not Met the Burden of Overcomig Movant'sConstitutional Rights.

Petitioner herself recognizes the importance of anonymity, having kept her own identity

secret. Under any standard, however, her Rule 202 petition fails to meet the burden required to

compel disclosure of an anonymous speaker's identity.

First, nothing in the record indicates that M.P. made any effort to notify Movant or any

person posting to the Google blog at issue that M.P. sought an order disclosing their identities.

M.P. never even used the simplest method of providing notice - posting to the blog itself, which

allows for visitors to post comments. Ths was required. E.g., Dendrite IntI., Inc., 775 A.2d at

760; Cahil, 33 Media Law Rep. at 2444.

Second, the Petition did not identify a single statement that constituted actionable libel of

M.P., let alone proffer summary judgment evidence supporting a libel claim. The Petition does

not even clearly allege that libelous statement have been made - it repeatedly refers to


"derogatory" statements, but "derogatory" is a broad and vague term has no legal meanng in

libel law. See Exhibit 1 at 1-2.

Under Texas law and the constitution, libel is - rightfully so - diffcult to prove. A libel

plaintiff must prove, at a minimum, that a false and defamatory statement of fact, about her, was

published, negligently or with constitutional actual malice. E.g., Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. v.

Penick, 219 S.W.3d 425, 433 (Tex. App. - Austin 2007, no pet.). Libel plaintiffs must prove a

substantially false statement of fact. McIlvain v. Jacobs, 794 S.W.2d 14, 17 (Tex. 1990);

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1990). Statements of opinion are not

actionable. Carr v. Brasher, 776 S.W.2d 567, 570 (Tex. 1989). Insults, epithets, name-calling

and rhetorical hyperbole are not actionable. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20. Statements on matters of

public concerns are privileged. TEX. Civ. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 73.002(b)(2); Anonsen v.

Donahue, 857 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex. App. - Houston pst Dist.) 1993, writ denied), cert. denied,

114 S. Ct. 2135 (1994).

Texas law carefully protects individuals' right to speak, including providing special

procedural protections in libel cases. E.g., Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551, 558 (Tex. 1989)

("(S)ummary judgment practice is paricularly well-suited for the determination of libel actions,

the fear of which can inhibit comment on matters of public concern."); TEX. Civ. PRAC. & REM.

CODE § 51.014(a)(6) (providing interlocutory appeal from denial of summar judgment to

members of "electronic media" in free speech cases).

M.P.'s petition did not identify a single libelous statement, let alone offer evidence that

would survive summar judgment in a libel case, and the Court therefore has no way of

evaluating whether M.P. has any good faith and well-founded basis for seeking the compelled

disclosure of the identity of Movant and the persons who posted comments on Movant's Google


blog. The blog itself has been removed, lessening even further any interest M.P. may have in

revealing the identify of Movant and others who posted opinions on the blog. See

ww.dmccsucks.blogspot.com. Therefore, the written discovery served by M.P. to Google, Inc.,

should be quashed and a protective order entered.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movant respectfully requests that this

Court grant this motion and quash the subpoena issued to Google, Inc., enter a protective order

protecting Movant from any discovery to third paries or directly to Movant, that would reveal

Movant's identity or that would provide information that could reasonably be calculated to lead

to the discovery of Movant's identity, and for such other and further relief to which Movant may

be entitled.

Respectfull y submitted,

GRAVES, DOUGHERTY, HEARON & MOODY, P.C.401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2200Austin, Texas 78701(512) 480-5764 (Telephone)(512) 536-9908 (Fax)

By: / t/ l1Peter D. KeiiedyState Bar No. 1129 õ50

ATTORNEYS FOR Mav ANT

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Counsel for movant and counsel for respondent have personally conducted a conferenceat which there was a substantive discussion of every item presented to the Court in this motionand despite best efforts the counsel have not been a~o :ty,ol e those ma s resented.

Certified to the Day of October 25,2007, by / v \Peter D. Kennedy


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a tre and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on

October~ 2007, as shown below:

John W. Bickel, IIC. Dunham BilesBickel and Brewer4800 Bank One Center1717 Main StreetDallas, Texas 75201(via email and Certified Mail, RR)


.~ l/~/Peter D. Kennedy

No.",;'""''1

LJ

-rv_'

~ ¡: l 8

'$

IN 0:PETITION OF M.P.REQUESTING A DEPOSITIONOF CORPORA TI REPRESEl\l'A TIVEFOR GOOGLE, INC.

§§§§§

;.; t~IN THE lllStNC't roWT OF

",~"_~'.'"" ,'_, ,," D :J1UT Y

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, ".- -.,.,~--

¡,.thDICIAL DISTRICT

PETITION REQUESTlNG DEPOSITION TO

INVESTIG&TE P01~ENTlACLAlMOR SUIT

M.P. ("Petitioner") requests authority to táke the deposition ofacorporate reresentative

Gougle, Inc. ("Google'1~ iii ô;rder to investigate a potential claimot swi,as authorized by

Rule of CivilPrôcedur 202.

l.

Petitioner is an individuål residing in DatI. County, Texø. Petitionetseeks to

investigate a potential claim she may have againstathirdpary. Petitioiier reques~ to be,refered

as '''M,P.'' in lieu ofhèrfull name in order to protect her privacy and, giV(I Ùleriatue of ths

petition~ curail any futu harnssrnent. M..P.'linamewill be di$èlosedtoOøogle f(l purposes of

the reuested deposition.

n.

Pettioner seeks to depose a corporaterepresentatlve for Google. Gòo~le is a corprntiøn

organized under the laws of Deiaware~ and with its principal place of busines at 1600

luuphitheatre Parkway) Mountain View, CA 94043 and telephone number of (650) 253-0000.

Coogle may be served through its registered agent, Corporation ServiCe Company d//a CSCJ at

EXHIBIT701 Braos Street, Suite 1050, Austin, Texas 78101.

lB I

PtTlTmN RWUES'fKG DElOSlTlON 10INVESnGAn: POTKNTiAl.CUdM OR SUIT

P,\(;E 1

UI.

TIie substance of the testimony expected to be elicited from Coogle involves obtanin

the munes and addresses of entìtes and/or individuals who are hosting and posting derogatory

staternents concerning M.P. on. blogs hosted by Google. Such testimony is sought in order to

acquire the names and addresses of tht: individuals and/or entities resinsible for these

derogatory statements to further investigate. potential claims resulting from those. smtements.

This information is necessaryin order for M.P. to request that such defamatory C()nduët cease

and/or for M.P. potentially to me claims figainsnhe responsible individuals and/öttntities. 'The

ofthis procedure is outwèigIiedbythe faët that thsdepositionmay help avoidJitigatiøn.

FOR REASONS STATED, M.P.requeoŠts:tlatthè Cotlset å date fbrabeadngon

petition, and after the hearing find that the likely benefitófal1ówingPètititniel'to tåke tbe

feque$teç deposition to investigate apoteì1ûal chilWóutweighsdicbmden ore~peseotthe

Petitioner furter requests that the Cour iSSii~ àn order authorizig Petitioner to take

reresenmtive for GoogJe~ on oral examination, to betaken at a time

place to bespêCiñed byPetitionerìn adèposidôitnoticêâSrêqûÎêdbythê'i~$Riiie$Øt

Civil Procedure.

PETíTION R'EQVf:STlN(, DnUSJTON 1'0INVf:~TIGA n: POTENTIAL Ct~4IM OR StJIT PAGE 2

Respectfully submitted,

nICKEL & :SIUr\\ER

By: ..e-.

John W. Bickel IlState Bar No. 08867720C. DunhamBllesState Bar No. 2402407

1717 Main StreetSuite 4800DaBas? Texas 75201

Telepllone: (214)653;;4000

Facsimile: (214) 653~ 1015

A170JlT\EVS FORPLAiNTlfP

PETITON REQUESTiNG DEPOSITlON To

iNVrSHG.-\'f POTE!\'TML CLAIM OR SUIT PAGE 3

VERIFICATION

STATE OF TEXASiCOUNY OF DALLAS

Before me, the undersigned Nøtary.Public, on this day personally appeared Michael L.

Smith, who heing duly sworn on his oath deposed nnd stated that he has read the above petition

that the factual statements cOl1tainedinSection il of the petition are tre ånd corrct.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TObcÎore rnethe underigned aii botity this i.,l . day of

2007, to cerify whidi w'imess myliá1dnnd s~aloroffee.

MY~~tt(

5138513.205002

pmnON REQL!r;Sl1NG OEPOSITON ToINVFS1'GA TE Pon:NTIAL CLAIM OR SUIT PAGE 4

~

l'

"

No. 07..ll34wH

IN 8: lPETITION OF M.P. §REQUESTING A DEPOSITION §OF CORPORATE REPRESENTATI§FOR GOOGLE, lNC.§

IN THE DISl'JICTCOURT OF

DALLAS COUN, TEXAS

160TH JUICIAL DISTRICT

OMEI'.AUTßOllGDISCOVERY

On thi~ day the Cour hear a petition reestig authrity to tae liinted

discoveryftom Googlet. Ine. ('tGoøgle") .inord~ ~tøobtasu.cient jnwi$ton to

identify theentines and/or individuals whoarpø~ deroptst~~~eonøei:n.g

thepetitioner on bløgs hO$ted by Google as. well astlose respøblefót suçhblógs. The

CoUrt liavin¡QØnsider the pleaditîgsaneVid-ceis of theopùûóUthlttli matétål

allegations oftl verlñllpøtition ar.tne, an tlttb likelyllîiefit Qfi:ijJo\VÌiig the

peljtioner tø øbtantherequ~stød inotl-IQl'tø tnve$ga.te ap~tootiøi. _naotsøiid

aease âÏd dest letts òutWeighsthe b~ ai~etoft1~ueìteaí$covei.

AcoørdÎiigiYi th. Courhereuy ..gt the petitione autIØrity to.. setedilioiV'e! ..ó1

(Jglê sekiugall inormätIon inGogle'spbsmsion cutöyl or oontrlOOêemg

the identity oftle entities andlorindividuas i:enriòle førpøtig ~ga.tor

statements regardig M.P. on blogs hosteby (jøøg1ø.an thø$Ø.~Jimlet~rsuch

blogs.

IT is ACCO!UlNGLY, OlU1SD, tht pettioner is auth~ tøsêre

discover on Googlein accordance with 'fexll Ibles of Civil Preedure reuirig

Google to provide inormation. concemiiig the identy of the úiividus aId1ør entities

posting derogatory staements. regarg M.P. on blogs .ho$t byoogle an.EXHIBIT

resnsible fot such blogs. l:i Ã

ORDER AUTHORIZIG 1llSCOVERY age

..

SIGNEON Jø~ ~..(...l~/J / '

5139596.3Q500.t)2

ORD.ER AUTIIORIZIG DISCOVERY Page 2

No. 07~07934-H

IN RE:PETITION OF M.P.REQUESTING A DEPOSITIONOF CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVEFORGOOGLE, INC.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF§§§§

§

DALLAS COUNT, TEXAS

160tli JUICIA DISTRICT

M.P,'S FIRST SET OFINTERROGATORIES TO GOOGLE..INC.

TO: Google, Inc., by and throughìts custodian ofrecords, Edmond Choì, 1600 AmphiteatreParkway, Mountain View,. CA 94043.

COMES NOW, M.P., by and through attorneys of rêcord~Biêkel& Brewer, and

piirSLlAAt tø Rnle 197 of the TeXas Rules ofCiyil Procedure, serves M.P-'s First Set of

Iñterr()gatoriese~lnterrgatories") upon Goógle, Inc. eGoogle").Google shall answer these

Intètto.gatorles. fully, in wridng, and under oath subject to the definitîo!l andinstnctionsset

tortli hèteiJl. Ooogle shall sere its .answets upon counsel for M;P.at. the officesôfBickel &

Drew~, 1717. Main. St1Øêt,. Suite 4800, Dallås, TêxâS 752()1, withn thitt(30) daY$aftètservice

oftlese.JriterroglttorÌe,.

i.

. . DEFINTIONS. AND INSTRUCTIONS

I. To the . extent provided by th~Tøxas Rules or Civil Procedqrt\ the$~

Interrogatories are intended to be continuing in namre. You ar~ requested and required to

supplement your responses when appropriate or necessary to the full extentpI'ovided by the

Texas Rules of Civil Prcede, the Local Rules. and any Order of this Cour to make your

responses correct and complete.

lB

EXHIBIT

3l\.,l/SFIB.ST SET OFINTERROGATORIS TO GOOGLE. INC. Page J

2. These Interrgatories are intended to include. aU documents in your possession, or

subject to your custody or control, whether directly or indirectly. A document is deemed to be

within your possession, custody, or control if: (1) it is within your actual possession, custody or

control; or (2) it is within thep9ssessionøfany otler person or entity and you have the right to

obtain the document Jrom such person orentity.andyòu:

(a) own the documentinwhole orin par;

(b) have. a tight by contract,$tatute or otherwise to use, inspect, examine, or

copy such døcument on anytert; or

(c) as a practical mattør, haveheen able to USe, inspect,exåtine, or copy such

document when you. have $(l.ghttodo so.

3; Unless ötheiwiseIndicated,theuseIn tlese Interrogatories of YOtir nâncor the

name of any p,laintift defendânt, pary.bu~ine$s orgai~tioIl,or other legal entity, shall

specifically include aU. oftb~itentity's prØ$entQr,toimcrempløyees, officers,dtrectQrs, agenls,

representatives,. memben, departen~, seçtiqns, affliates, subsidifles,paients,littorneys ofthe

PCt'aa, party,orb\.sihe$SQtg~i?:atìøn~ arI-.a.11 øthet',peilQnsactingon Îtsbehalf.

4. "You"ttÍld"~Qûr" shallref'ettø G()Qgl~,jnctuding.l)utnò'tlhtnted to Oòogle's

teptesentatives,ttgertts; empløyecs,attorreya,. and/or an)' olleactlngoll itsb~halt.

5. Forpliøsl) of ÌritêtpI'etin,g or~()nsttiI1~tleSCQpeof these lI1terto~àtQriest YQU

are instrcted to give word$ theirmQst expan~IYe $îdinthisive.rne~g$. . ¥ousflQUiØtherefore:

(a) Constre the words "and"

(i well as "or" ¡lithe disjunctive or conjunctive,

as necessary to make the R:eqllstforÍnclUsÍve;

(0) C;onstrethe term "iiiêludihg"tômea "includig, but not1ìmitedto";

(c) Constre the word "aný'~ to include and mean "each and every' and "anyand aW';

(d) Construe the plural form ora word to include the singular and vice versa;

and

1\.P.'SFIRST SET OFlNTEJlOGATOlUS TO GOOGLE. INC. Page 2

(e) Construe the tnasciì.ìienoun or adjective to incliiethe feminine and vice

versa.

6. "Communication," "collllunJc~te," and "communi~ated," means any oral,

written or electronic utterance, notation, or statement of any nature whatsever, IncludiI1g

without limitation: correspondence; personal conversations; telephone calls~ dialogtte$;

discussions; interviews; consultations; telegrams; e-mäí1s; metadata; telexes; cables; fäcsirnHe

transmissions;memoraqa; agreements; audio recordings, and otheroral, written, or electronic

communications.

7. "Relate tot "related 10,'; ~relatiQg tQ,"~retertQ," ''regarding,''

'~conc.erniiig," of "concern" mean concèrring,relatiig to,regatdìng, retlêCtbig,refemi:g to,

having a relationship to, pct'aining to,îdentityjng. contaning,perìnent to,COnlpromising,

setting forth; . showing, díšclosiI1g, des~ribin~~.. explaining, . sumanzinKjcv.dencing, .or

constituting, dircQtlyor indirectly, in whole or Inpar,or to beothe1';iG~. f~c;tllalty, i~gall;Y,91'

lagiçallyconn~tedt.Eithe .su'bj~t.matter.øft1eparij;tllar~quest.

S. "PersønJ1and "persôns" incit1tl~ rtàti.liI1djvidaälG, gt()Ûps.of.~tuia.

iti(lividUàls acting inacollegìal capiìeity(e.g;, a eømtittè ...otÇõun$el)f eørporanø.iis,

partnerships, a,saçiations, trsts, joint yen,tl.reG,ai(i .zmygtl~r inçØtpQrat~()t1.utRÇõr:ra.t~..

busiiiess,govenietital, public or legal entity.. A re~øcê toaiy.Pétøöri$lt~lrjóc1u4e, when

applicable, .Its subsi4ìaliês,coIttrolled pers9ns, cQntrolling.. perSt1s,shlrehØlders, oflcers,

directors, employees, agents. oîother perons actìtigorplltprting to ãeton itäbehalf.

9. "nescribe," "description," "ident.liçatiQn," "identify," and "id(tntity," when

used in reference to (a) a natural individual, requites you to state. his or herfin.l1ame, residential

and business addresses, and telephone numbers; (b) a corporation, requites you to stateîts full

M.P. 'S FIRST SET OFINTERROGATORIES TO GOOGLE, INC. Page 3

corporate name and ary name under which it does business, its state ofincorporation, and the

address of its principal place of business; (c) business, requires you to state the fuU name or style

under which the business is conducted, its business address or addresses, the types of businesses

ìn which it is engaged, the geographical areas in which it conducts thOse businesses, and the

identity of the person or persns who öv,'U, operate, and control the businesses; (d) a document,

requires you to state the nature of the document, its title, its date, ard. the naíe Of names of its

authors or recipients, its length in number of pages or otherwise, and. its present location and

custodian; (e) a communiciitìon, requites you to identify persons paricipating in the

commiinication and to state the date, timê,. manner, place, mean~.ândšubsta*e .of the

communication which was wrtten, to identifY the document Or documents which refetto the

communication.

II.

PRIVILEGED.ORPR()PlUl'ARY INF()R.TION

If you contend that. a rê$pOnse to ar ìnterrogatty cålls for thedisclosureofpnvilegtd

information, ift whøleormpai, ol'if YQuotherwis'êøbjectto arYPaiöfariy int~:ogl.tôry,yøu

atc required to provide a coinplete response to thèponIon of theiintt.g~tørythatisI1Qt

privileged or objectionable. With respect to tbetelI~ndet of thê.IntetQgatory,statethè

following: (a)tbe reaon forsueh objection dtgroundforex.clusion; (b)tle.ìdentîty òf each

person bavingknowledge of the factual basis aJa.t,be identity of tleinaividijl doc'\ents,it

any, on whicn. the privilege or other ground is assçrted; (e) ihena.tne of the clg. or privilege;

and (d) the brief descriptìonofthe item, document or thing in a maner soa. nut to waive the

privilege.

M,P.'S FIRST SET OFINTERROGATORIS TO GooGLE. INC. Page 4

in.

INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATOR\' NO.1:

In relation to the website www.blogspot.com. provide the following inormation for the accountwith the user name "DMCCSDCKS": (1 ) the date and time when the account was created; (2)the e-mail address. provided to create the account; (3) the IP addrssees) associated with theaccount; and (3) any additional information that identifies, or that could help to identify, theperson and/or entity that created the account, including, but not limited to: (a) name; (b) address;and (c) telephonenurnber.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO.2:

In. relation to the website Ww.blogspot.coID, provide the following ihfo.rmation tor the..blog"DeLMar.Country Club. Is A Fraud,"loca.ted at WW.dniccsucks.blogspot.coni: (i)..thed~teandtimewhentheblog wasfirst created; (2) the USer name oftheperson~iwcteated the (3)

the e'-mail address provided to create the account; (4) the IP addtss(es) associated theaccol,nt; and (5) any additional information that identifies, or that could help to id~ntify, thepersoil and/or entity that created the bløg, inchiding, but not limited tø: (a) name; (b) address;âl:d Ie) telephortenl.unl'n,r.

ANSWER:

m'lltRROGATORY NO.3:

Iii relation to theblog "Del Mar Countr Club IsA Fl'aud,~' Iocatedat

ww,dmccsuêks.blo!$~l'otcom, provide the following iíifonnatìoìÌ fot.theblog liosting"MP

musthe stopped!"; (l)the date and time when the. postoccurred; ~2)the~rname for the'Bosting; (3) the e-mail address provided to create tieaccóutt;(4)tle.IP adûts(es)associatedWith the. account; and(S) any additional. infomiationthatid~tiñes.or thatC?uldhelPJoidentify,the, person and/or entity whornade the

posting, inClUding, but notlimité to: fa) name; (1)address~ and (c) telephone number. '

ANSWER:

INTERROGAIORYNO.4:

In relation to the blog "Del Mar Countr Club Is A Fraud," located atww.dniccsucks.blog;spotcom, provide the following information for conmients posted inresponse to the blog posting ''M must be stoppedii': (l) the date and time when each comment

M.P.dSFIRST SET OFINTERROGATORIES TO COOGLE, INC. PageS

was posted; (2) the IP addrssees) associated with the posted comments; and (3) any additionalinformation that identifies, or that could help to identify, the person(s) andlorentity who, postedthe comments, including, but not limited to: (a) name;(\) address; and (c) telephone number.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO.5:

In relation to the blog "Del Mar Coiitry Club Is A Fraud," located atwww.dmccsucks.hloi2spot.coni,providethe following information for the hyperlink entitled"Goat Track," located under the "Link" section of "Del Mar Countr Club Is A Fraud" bJog:(1) the date and time when the link was createdi (2) themirneof the user that created the link; (3)the e-mail address provided to create theuset's account; (4) the IP addressees) associated with

the user's account; (5) the datcand tì.twhenindividindshave linked to the Del.Mar CountryClub homcpage (http://delmarcountryclub.com) from the . "Goat Track" hyperlink;.and (6) the IPaddressees) ofindiyidualswho useq the "Goat Track" hypetlink.

ANSWER:

M.P/S FIRT SET OFINTEIUOGATORIES TO GOOGLE. INC. Page 6

M.P. 'S FIRST SET OFINTERROGA TORlF.. TO GOGLE. INC.

Respectfully. submitted,

BICKEL & BREWER

By. f!~~(j /John W. Bickel, IIState Bar No. 08867720C. Dunham BilesState BarNo. 24042407

4800 Ban One Center1717 Main StreetDallas, Texas 75201Tel~phøJíe: (214) 653..4CJQØ

Telecopíer: (214)653..1015

ATTORNYS FOR M.P.

Page 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1 certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be served

upon the following custodian of record in the above cause via email in accordance wîth Rule 21

of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on ths 7-7 day of September, 2007~

Edmond ChoiCustodian of RecordGoogle, Inc.1600 Amphiteatre ParkwayMountain View, CA 94043

Hilar Ware, Esq.

uqogle, Inc.1600 Amphiteatfe ParkwayMountain View, CA 94043 l

~"t~ ~..C~ Dtmar BIles ;?

5142946.1!ÎI4.Q3

M.P. 'S FIRST SET OFINTERROGA TORIES TO GOOGLE. INC.

Page 8

No. 07-07934-H

INRE:PETITION OF M.P.REQUESTING A .DEPOSITIONOF CORPORATE REPRSENTATIVEFOR GOOGLE, INC.

§§§§§

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

160th JUDICIAL DISTRiCT

M.P.'S FIRST REQUEST FOR THEPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO GOOGLE.JNC.

TO: Google, Inc., hy and through its custodian of records, Edmond Choi, 1600 AmphiteatreParkway, Mountain View, CA 94043.

COMES NOW, M.P., by and through attorneys of record, Bickel '& Brewer, and

pursuant to Rule 196 öfthe Texas Rules öfCivil Procedure, servesM.P.'s First Request for the

Production of Documents ("Request for Documents") upon Google, Inc. ("Google''). JvLP.

hereby requests production, inspection, and copying of aU documentsardtagîble things which

arêreSpo11siveto the subjèctmatter categories sêtforthbelow.

Google shallarswer this Request for Documents fully, inwntirtg. arcll.detøat4,.subject

to the detinitionsand instructions set . forth herein.Oooglé is requcstetand teqUkef pursuat tö

Rule 196 of the Texas Ruleso.f Civil Procedure., toprøduce for inspectî9nana. èopyíÏ1gthe

documents specified below at the offces of Bickél & Brewer; 1717 Main Stréét" Suite 4800,

naHas, Texas 75201 , on the earlier of any dåte ordetedby theCoui,asagreedby thepatIesj ôr

not more than thirty (30) days after service hereof. The produced döøiun.cnts should be

organized as they are kept in the ordinar course of biisiness or organized and labeled 10

correspond with each paricular Request.

EXHIBIT

j ~M.P,'S FIRST REOUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO GOOGLE, INC, Page 1

I.

DE:FNlllONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. To the extent provided by the Texl. Rules of Civil Procedure, this Request for

Documents is intended to be continuing iniiatue, Yo.uare requested and required to suppleme:nt

your reSponses when appropriate or necessary to make Correct and complete to the full extent

provided by the Texas Rules of CiviJ Procedure,.the Local Rules, and any Order of this Court.

2. To the cAtent tha.t Googlebelieves tha,tany of the following requests are vague or

ambiguous,. Google is req'Uested to notify M.P. hnmediateiyand a clarficatkm will be provided.

3.. "\'ou"and "yaui:" shall refer toGoOgi~, including but not lírited to Google's

representatives, agents, employees, attomeyS, and/or anyone acting on .íts behalf.

4. This Request för Doctients isil1terided to include áll documents in your

po$sessian, or subject layout custody ørcoiitröhWhether directly or ihditectly. A document is

deemed iobe withinyourpössession, custodY,otoonttlif: (l)ìt is within your actual

possession, custiJdy orcon(rol..'or. I. Z)it i$wìtllintJe:P9s~ession of a,yotherpe,rori ot entity and.' . ... .you haveth:cright to obtain thedocumentÌÌUtll such person or entity, åld you:

Ca) own. th~ docutl~nt iii whole örlnpar;

(b) have R. rignthycontract, statutcør otherwise...to use,..mspèCt,.examine.ot copy such

documents on any term; or

(c) as apracticalinatter~have bct1u .able tøuse,iri$pect,examine or copy such docureritwhenyöuhavè soughtto do so.

Forthe avoidanceòfdoubt, thi$ Requestføl' Documents isintended.toinclude, but is hot limited

to, all documents subject to your control that are stored..on aryco1't)utets, Personal Digital

Assistants (PDA). or Blackberres, that areìn your custody or possession.

5. Unless otherise indicated, the usèin ths Request of your name or the name oJ

any plaititiff, defendant, pary, business organization, or other legal entity) shall specifically

M.P.'S FIRST REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO GOOGLE. INC. Page 2

include all of that entíty's present or fonrer employees, officers, directors, agents,

representatives, members, departents, sectiotl.affliates, subsidiares,parents, ~ttomeys of the

person, party, or business organization and all other persons acting on its behalf.

6. Each request seeks production of responsive dooumentsin their entirety, without

abbreviation, deletion; or redaction. Forthe avoidance of doubt, eaçh responsivee..maU message

should be produced withallóf its respective e-mail attåchments, and each responSÌve e-mail

attachment should be produced with itsrespeçtive partnt c"niail mØ/sage aid wÎth aU e-mail

attachments tö that respective pårent e-ma.íl message. to tlie extent tht Y(j\l consider an e-mail

méssage and its cortesportdinge..mai1àttachtertt(S)to constitutesepara.tedöçument&, M.P.

requests the production .óf alldoçunientsàttacliedto eiicli I'es.poIlsive e"niàllmessage,as Well as.... ,- -, ,-- ',"all e:"mailmessages for which a responsive document lsattachedàìdáll other documents

attached to said e..mailinessages. For ih~furteravøidan.ceofaøiibf,ai1"esponsivee1ecttoriic

docGmentsshould he producedw'Ìh all th~itcorreSp()ndingmetadata. To. tbe extent that you

cotlsitleran eleqtronic.qocument 's mt:tadata.toçotltîtuteaseparatø.d~umel1t1 M.P.teue$tsthe

ptnductìón of alí1l~tådatat1at corresPQIld.to~tleli rØ$ol1sive . el~trmç d()Çur~tiaid .all

el~trnìc documentsthátcorrspotid to.êâChtèsoiisivè piêcófinetiáta,

7. :Enrpurpo$eof mterprt:ting orcot1tlhig the.scop~'Qrtlie$eR~'lest.,youàTe

instructed to give words their most expanìve'ønd incliiivenieangs,¡ . You 'should, tlerefóte:

(a),Cól1strue thc.words."aid"as well...á$ ."ot" in the..disjunctiveor.conjunctive, asnecessary to make the Request moreinclusive;

(b) Constre the tent "iicluding" tónieai "iieludíng, but not liJlted to";

(c) Cóttstre the word "any" to include and mea "each and every" and "any and~~ .,

(d) Constne the plural förm öf a word to include the smgularand vice vera; and

M.P.'S FIRT REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO GOOGLE. INC. Page 3

(e) Constniea masculine noun or adjectivetoínclude the feminine and vice vera.

8. "Communication," "communicate," and "communicated," means any oral,

written or electronic utt~rance, notation. or statement of any nature whatsoever, including

without limitation: correspondence; personal conversations; telephone calls; dialogues;

discussions; interviews; consultations; telegrams; e~mails; e-mail attchments;metadata; telexes;

cables; facsimile transmissions; memoranda; agreements; audio recordings, and other otál,

writen, or electronic communications.

9. "Person" and "persons" include natural individuals, gfqupsof naturl

individuals acting in a collegial capacity (k;g.; a committee or counsef), cÓ1totations,

partnerships,iissociations, trusts, joint ventnres, antI anY other incotporatedorunincorporated

businêss, governental, . public Or legal entity. Areferenceto any person shÌ:df iriølude,When

applicable, its subsidiares, ëontroUedpersori$~ controlling perons"sP.choldcrs. officens,

directors, employees, agents. or other personsact1ngørput'orting to ,acton its behalf.

10. The tett "dQç.llJíent" shallmøa~ilwrtiigs ofanysol'and $h'C)uJdbeconstred

iii itsbroädest sense toin,clude but not be Umìted toåiioriglnalandnon"identiêaLcopiês~whethet

by reason ofiruirginaliaorothernotes Oli..attertiol1s,.araa11pteUminarôr'subsequentdraft.of'

the foHowing items. Wh~1her prited or tecotded. otteproduceq lWanY othèr i:eclianiciil'ør

electronic process, or written or prod,uceq by hand. Foravoidancø ofdøubt,ati electronic

document and its. corresponding inetadataconstitu.te'asìngle document.

i i. Unless otherise indicated, the USe in these Interrogatories of your name or the

name of any plaintiff, defendant, pary, busincss organizatiøn, ot,other legal entity, shall

specifically include all of that entity's preent or fonneremployees, offcers,. directors, ágeIltS,

M..l.'SFIRT REQUEST FORPRODtJCTION OF DOCUNTS TO COOGLE.INC. Page 4

representatives, member, deparents, sections, affliates, subsidiares, parents, attorneys of the

person, party, or business organization, and all other persons acting on its behalf.

II.

PRIVILEGED OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

If any document requested is withheld on the basis of a claim of privilege or work

product, or otherwise, you are requested to submit a desêription of the withheld Ilaterial or

infonnatíon pUl'suant to Rule 1 93.3(b ) ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Proceure.

III.

ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

If any Infonnation is withheld because such information ìsstored eleøtr()ttIQally,.yotille

requested to submìta written statement, no later than the date of the documentptoduction,

idèntifying the subject I1atter of the infomiationand thep1ace orplaceswhcresuchinonnation

is I1aintained, and for information stored electrnically, provide .a copy. of the .diskefte or tape

containing the electronIcaUystored information, including aU metadatl for tl¡t ele~tronicl:llY

stoireq . ínformatigI1,asuitable pto.grai or.method.ofretrieving such ìnföintion,and âpnnt;.out

ôfthe electronically stored information.

iv.

DESTROYEnnOCUMENTS

If any document requested has been lost, discare4, or destryed, youarrequ~$tedto

submit a written statement no later than the date of the commencement of the document

production, identifying as completely as possible each sucb dOCument so lost, discarded or

destrôyed. Identification of each such document shall include the date of disposal, maner of

disposal, reason for disposaL, persons authorizing the disposal, persons having knowledge oithe

disposal and persons dispsing of the docUìent.

M.P.'SFIRST REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOClJMI£NTS TO GOOGLE, INC. Page 5

v.

REOUESTED DOCUMENTS

REQUEST .FOR PRODUCTION NO. I:

In relation to the website WW.blogspot.coin, provide all documents with the follo\vinginformation about the account with the uscrnae HDMCCSUCKS": (1) the date and time whenthe áCcount was created; (2) the e-mail address provided to create the account; (3) the IPaddressees) assQCIated with the account; and (3) any additional infonnation that identifies, or thatcould help to identify,the peroulid/orørtity that created the account, including, but not limited

to: (a) name; (b) address; and (e) telephone number. reviewed by Googlein responded to M.P.'sFirst Set of Interrogatories to GoogIe, Inc.

ANSWER:

REOIJESTFORPROI1UC'IIÐN NO.2

In relation to the website. ww.blogspot.cotn~prQvideåiidócuments. with the. followinginforrationabout the blog "DtllIvar Country ClullIsA Fraud,H located at

www.dmccsuèks.blogšpbt.cQni:(1) the dåteåtd time \vhenthe b10g was first created; (2) theiiser náme of theperson who created the. blog;(3J the~-mail addfessprovided to create theaccount; (4) the lP¡:ddress(eii)associatedwitltheaccount;and (5) any additional informationtIät identiies, or that couid help to identìfy,the pCrSoil and/or entity that created the bldg,including, but nôtUllited to: (a.)nare; (b)liddress;an(ç)t(:lephone number.

ANSWER:

JlOIJEST Fo:R.PROJ)UC'lIÖ~ .NO..3

In relation to the blog(1)eIMat COUftt Club Is A Ftadt loêl1ted a.tww.dmccsucks,bJcigsptcom. provideall docûnenl~ With the followinginformatioJl..about theh10g posting "MP mustbe.stopped!":( 1) theda¡udtim~when the post .occurrcd; (2) the user

name forthe pösting;(3) thee.ma.iladdresprovìdedto create the account; (4) the IP addressees)assQcia.t~d with. the account; and (5) anyadditionalinfonnation. that identifies, or that could helpto identify, the persn andlorentity who made the postng, including, but not limiiedto: (a)nam.ç; (b) address; and (e) telephone number.

ANSWER:

M.P.'$ .l"'RST REOtJEST FORPRQDUCTION OF DOCIJENTS TO GOOGLE. INC. Page 6

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4

In relation to the blog "Del Mar Countr Club Is A Fraud," located atwww.dmccsucks.blogspot.com. provide all d()cuments with the following information for

comments posted in response to the blog posting."MP niust be stopped!": (1) thê date and timewhen each comment was posted; (2) the IP address(es) associated with the posted cOmrcnts;and(3) any additional inforration that identifies, or that could help to identify, the person(s) and/orentity who posted the comments, including, but not limited to: (a) name; (b) address; and (0)telephone number.

ANSWER:

REOUEST FOR PRODuCTION NO.5

In relation to the blog "Del Mar Country Club Is A. Fraud/, locattXatww.d111ccsucks.bIo~spot.CQm, provide alldoCUfeí1ts. with the ton()wÎ~gitifornationfor the

hyperlifl,kentited "Goat Track," located undert~e"J.ins"sectìonof "Pel Mar C9uatry Club IsA Fraud" bIog: (1) the date and time when the. linkwas created; (2)the naieoftbe user thatqreated the link; (3) the e.-mail addressprovidedto create thtl u$er'saccount; (4) the IPaddtess(es) assocÎated with the user's account; (S) the date and time when in4lviduals haveHiiked to the Del Mar Country Çlub homepagè(http://de1mounticlüb.c0í11) froin . the "GoatTrack" hyperlink; and(6) the IP addressees) of individUals. who used th~HGoat 'frack" hyperlink.

ANSWER:

M.P.'S FIRSt REQUEST FOR

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT to GOOGLE, INC. Page 7

Resectfully submitted,

BICKEL & BREWER

By:('~D~CLJolm W. Bickel, IIState Bar No. 08867720C. Dunham BilesState Bar No. 24042407

4800 Ban One Center

1717 Main StreetDallas, Texas 75201Teiø¡hone: (214) 653-4000Telecopier: (214)653-1015

ATtORN£\'SFOR M.P.

l\'1.P. 'S FIRST REQUEST ¡¡'ORPRODUCTION OF DOcUMENTS TO GOOGLE.INC. Page 8

CERTIFICAtE OF SERVICE

I certify that r caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be served

upon the following custodian of record in the above cause via email in accordacewith Rule 21

of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on this ~ day of September, 2007.

Edmond ChoiCustodian of RecordG90gle, Inc.1600 Amphiteatre ParkwayMountain View, CA 94043

Hilary Ware, Esq.

Google, Inc.1600 Amphiteatre Park\vaj'Mouhtain View, CA 94043 ~Q:?~9

C. Dunham Biles

5142951, I1114-03

M.P:S FIRST REQUEST FORPRODUcrlON OF DOCUMENTS TO GOOGLE.INC.

Page 9