Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 1238

ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT. Signed by Judge Alsup on August 20, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012)

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 ORACLE AMERICA, INC., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT GOOGLE INC., Defendant. / 14 15 No. C 10-03561 WHA The August 7 order was not limited to authors “paid . . . to report or comment” or to 16 “quid pro quo” situations. Rather, the order was designed to bring to light authors whose 17 statements about the issues in the case might have been influenced by the receipt of money from 18 Google or Oracle. For example, Oracle has disclosed that it retained a blogger as a consultant. 19 Even though the payment was for consulting work, the payment might have influenced the 20 blogger’s reports on issues in the civil action. Just as a treatise on the law may influence the 21 courts, public commentary that purports to be independent may have an influence on the courts 22 and/or their staff if only in subtle ways. If a treatise author or blogger is paid by a litigant, 23 should not that relationship be known? 24 In the Court’s view, Google has failed to comply with the August 7 order. Google is 25 directed to do so by FRIDAY, AUGUST 24 AT NOON with the following clarifications. Payments 26 do not include advertising revenue received by commenters. Nor does it include experts 27 disclosed under Rule 26. Google suggests that it has paid so many commenters that it will be 28 1 impossible to list them all. Please simply do your best but the impossible is not required. Oracle 2 managed to do it. Google can do it too by listing all commenters known by Google to have 3 received payments as consultants, contractors, vendors, or employees. As for organizations 4 receiving money, they need not be listed unless one of its employees was a commenter. Gifts to 5 universities can be ignored. Again, Google need only disclose those commenters that can be 6 identified after a reasonably diligent search. Oracle must supplement its list if this order clarifies 7 any issue for Oracle. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Dated: August 20, 2012. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2