Tech Crunch Declaration in Support of Motion For Expedited Discovery 12-28-09
Tech Crunch Declaration in Support of Motion For Expedited Discovery 12-28-09
Tech Crunch Declaration in Support of Motion For Expedited Discovery 12-28-09
12
101 California Street
1 3. TechCrunch also will serve subpoenas on PayPal (FG’s payment processor for JooJoo
2 pre-orders) and McGrath Power (FG’s PR firm). We do not seek an order requiring these entities to
4 4. Prior to filing this motion, my partner Andrew Bridges and I communicated with
5 counsel for FG to agree to the relief TechCrunch now seeks by motion. As required by Local Rules
6 1-5 (n) and 6-3 (a)(2), Mr. Bridges and I spoke by telephone to Patrick Doolittle, counsel for FG, on
7 December 28, 2009, following a call between Mr. Bridges and Mr. Doolittle the previous week. Mr.
9 5. Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a December 30, 2008, email exchange. In this
10 exchange, TechCrunch’s Louis Monier engaged in direct communications with FG to help define the
11 user interface, technical specifications, and software details for a working prototype assembled by
San Francisco, CA 94111-5894
Winston & Strawn LLP
12 Mr. Monier’s team. FG commented: “This is great news. Good to see the first signs of the baby :)”
101 California Street
13 (emoticon original).
14 6. Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a January 19, 2009, TechCrunch blog posting,
15 which states in part: “The software has been created by Fusion Garage, who continue to work with
16 Louis on the feature set and user experience.”
17 7. Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a document that purports to be the Google-
18 archived version of FG’s blog. We believe this to be a true and accurate copy of the text that FG
19 originally posted on its fusiongarage.com blog. FG has since disabled public access to its blog and
20 may have deleted it entirely. The January 19, 2009, entry states in part: “It’s our software running
21 on the tablet ... We continue to work with Louis Monier on the feature set and the user experience.
22 We ... would like to take the opportunity to thank Michael [Arrington] and Louis for giving us the
23 opportunity to work with them on the TechCrunch Tablet.” A follow-up February 4, 2009, entry
24 states: “the collaboration with the Crunchpad project happened as a result of meetings we had with
25 Mike Arrington and co, subsequent to [TechCrunch50]. We worked closely with Louis Monier in
26 getting the software in shape for the hardware prototype B. We continue to work with them in
1 stating: “we’ve continued to tinker with the project ... We did meet with Fusion Garage today to test
2 out the most recent prototype (B.5)? ... The software stack is now entirely customized. ... This time
3 the ID and hardware work was driven by Fusion Garage out of Singapore. ... All credit should go to
4 Fusion Garage ... you need partners to actually make things happen, and the credit for what we saw
5 today goes entirely to the Fusion Garage team. Those guys are rock stars.” This is one of several
6 documents evidencing that the parties worked in close collaboration, including joint work at
7 TechCrunch’s California headquarters, where FG’s CEO, Chandrasekar Rathakrishnan, and software
10 Rathakrishnan’s Twitter feed, printed from twitter.com. Mr. Rathakrishnan broadcast the following
11 statement by Twitter on May 25, 2009: “just leaving techcrunch office, last to leave today and its
San Francisco, CA 94111-5894
Winston & Strawn LLP
12 memorial day.” On June 3, he wrote: “CrunchPad Update, the launch prototype, we are excited
101 California Street
13 working on this.”
14 10. Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of a June 3, 2009, TechCrunch blog post, which
15 praises FG and describe their ongoing collaboration, stating in part: “Our partner Fusion Garage
16 continues to drive the software forward ... Our vision of the user interface and the last version of the
17 software stack ... The device boots directly into the browser.”
18 11. Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of a June 2, 2009, email string between FG and
19 TechCrunch, which evidences that FG and TechCrunch each were active participants in marketing
20 and other business decisions. In part of this string, Mr. Rathakrishnan wrote: “my suggestion is that
21 we do a post, update new device pictures and at the same time announce that we will be having a
23 12. Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of a June 27, 2009, email string from Mr.
24 Rathakrishnan confirming FG’s agreement for FG to merge into CrunchPad Inc. in exchange for
26 13. Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of an August 31, 2009, email string from Mr.
1 and user interface issues and the parties’ jointly-selected original design manufacturer, Pegatron, on
2 hardware and pricing. The email reveals significant friction during this period, and TechCrunch
3 seriously considered ending the joint venture. In response, Mr. Rathakrishnan begged TechCrunch
4 to continue working together and promised to fly his entire team to the Bay Area to drive the
5 CrunchPad to completion: “Pls do not kill the project as yet. Pls hold off a week. ... I know how to
6 deal with Pegatron and some of the challenges that we are currently facing. We can overcome these
7 challenges. ... If we decide to move forward and get the product launched at TC50 or separate press
8 event, then I will have my team to back me and get the product where it needs to be. ... So [a] team
10 14. Relying on these representations, TechCrunch sponsored business visas for four of
11 the Indian nationals on the team, and starting in September FG and TechCrunch personnel worked
San Francisco, CA 94111-5894
Winston & Strawn LLP
12 together in TechCrunch’s offices to get the CrunchPad ready for launch. As late as November 13,
101 California Street
13 2009, all seemed well, with Mr. Rathakrishnan confirming that “we shd target the [November 20]
14 event in sf” for the CrunchPad’s public debut. Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of this email
15 string from Mr. Rathakrishnan.
16 15. But then, on November 17–in an email that it concedes “came out of the blue”–FG
17 abruptly aborted the project, asserting that it owned all associated IP rights and would manufacture
18 and market the CrunchPad product on its own. Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of the
19 November 18, 2009, email string from Mr. Rathakrishnan, which incorporates his November 17
20 message.
21 16. Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of a letter received from Pegatron purporting to
22 terminate Pegatron’s relationship with FG as of October 2009. TechCrunch did not receive a copy
24 17. Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of an email string from Mr. Rathakrishnan
25 purporting to attach FG’s “capitalization table” in spreadsheet form. According to that capitalization
26 table, one FG investor (“Raffles”) lent FG $100,000 Singapore dollars at an interest rate of 1.65%
27 per month (19.8% annualized), and another (“Wilfred”) lent FG $100,000 Singapore dollars at an
28 interest rate of 7% per month.
4
BLOCH DEC. ISO MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
SF:270242.1
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12 Filed12/28/09 Page5 of 5
1 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
10
11
San Francisco, CA 94111-5894
Winston & Strawn LLP
12
101 California Street
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
BLOCH DEC. ISO MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
SF:270242.1
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-1 Filed12/28/09 Page1 of 6
EXHIBIT A
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-1 Filed12/28/09 Page2 of 6
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-1 Filed12/28/09 Page3 of 6
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-1 Filed12/28/09 Page4 of 6
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-1 Filed12/28/09 Page5 of 6
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-1 Filed12/28/09 Page6 of 6
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-2 Filed12/28/09 Page1 of 9
EXHIBIT B
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-2 Filed12/28/09 Page2 of 9
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-2 Filed12/28/09 Page3 of 9
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-2 Filed12/28/09 Page4 of 9
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-2 Filed12/28/09 Page5 of 9
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-2 Filed12/28/09 Page6 of 9
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-2 Filed12/28/09 Page7 of 9
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-2 Filed12/28/09 Page8 of 9
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-2 Filed12/28/09 Page9 of 9
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-3 Filed12/28/09 Page1 of 3
EXHIBIT C
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-3 Filed12/28/09 Page2 of 3
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-3 Filed12/28/09 Page3 of 3
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-4 Filed12/28/09 Page1 of 4
EXHIBIT D
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-4 Filed12/28/09 Page2 of 4
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-4 Filed12/28/09 Page3 of 4
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-4 Filed12/28/09 Page4 of 4
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-5 Filed12/28/09 Page1 of 12
EXHIBIT E
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-5 Filed12/28/09 Page2 of 12
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-5 Filed12/28/09 Page3 of 12
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-5 Filed12/28/09 Page4 of 12
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-5 Filed12/28/09 Page5 of 12
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-5 Filed12/28/09 Page6 of 12
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-5 Filed12/28/09 Page7 of 12
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-5 Filed12/28/09 Page8 of 12
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-5 Filed12/28/09 Page9 of 12
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-5 Filed12/28/09 Page10 of 12
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-5 Filed12/28/09 Page11 of 12
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-5 Filed12/28/09 Page12 of 12
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-6 Filed12/28/09 Page1 of 2
EXHIBIT F
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-6 Filed12/28/09 Page2 of 2
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-7 Filed12/28/09 Page1 of 5
EXHIBIT G
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-7 Filed12/28/09 Page2 of 5
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-7 Filed12/28/09 Page3 of 5
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-7 Filed12/28/09 Page4 of 5
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-7 Filed12/28/09 Page5 of 5
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-8 Filed12/28/09 Page1 of 2
EXHIBIT H
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-8 Filed12/28/09 Page2 of 2
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-9 Filed12/28/09 Page1 of 5
EXHIBIT I
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-9 Filed12/28/09 Page2 of 5
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-9 Filed12/28/09 Page3 of 5
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-9 Filed12/28/09 Page4 of 5
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-9 Filed12/28/09 Page5 of 5
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-10 Filed12/28/09 Page1 of 4
EXHIBIT J
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-10 Filed12/28/09 Page2 of 4
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-10 Filed12/28/09 Page3 of 4
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-10 Filed12/28/09 Page4 of 4
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-11 Filed12/28/09 Page1 of 3
EXHIBIT K
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-11 Filed12/28/09 Page2 of 3
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-11 Filed12/28/09 Page3 of 3
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-12 Filed12/28/09 Page1 of 2
EXHIBIT L
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-12 Filed12/28/09 Page2 of 2
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-13 Filed12/28/09 Page1 of 5
EXHIBIT M
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-13 Filed12/28/09 Page2 of 5
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-13 Filed12/28/09 Page3 of 5
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-13 Filed12/28/09 Page4 of 5
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-13 Filed12/28/09 Page5 of 5
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-14 Filed12/28/09 Page1 of 3
EXHIBIT N
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-14 Filed12/28/09 Page2 of 3
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-14 Filed12/28/09 Page3 of 3
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-15 Filed12/28/09 Page1 of 4
EXHIBIT O
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-15 Filed12/28/09 Page2 of 4
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-15 Filed12/28/09 Page3 of 4
Case5:09-cv-05812-JW Document12-15 Filed12/28/09 Page4 of 4