Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1143

Declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier in Support of 1142 MOTION in Limine Defendants' Motions in Limine filed bySAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20)(Related document(s) 1142 ) (Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 4/26/2012)

EXHIBIT 10

Page 1 of 4

Subject:
RE: Supplemental Discovery and Expert Deposition Scheduling
From:
House, Holly
01/19/2010 12:47 PM
To:
'Jason McDonell'
Cc:
"Donnelly, Amy", "Hann, Bree", "Russell, Chad", "Pickett, Donn", "Elaine Wallace",
"Howard, Geoff", "Jane L Froyd", "Joshua L Fuchs", "Polito, John A.", "Lee, Lisa", "Jindal,
Nitin", "'Scott Cowan'", "Alinder, Zachary J.", "Patrick Delahunty", "Greg Lanier",
"Jacqueline K. S. Lee", "Jeffrey M Butler"
Show Details

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.
Jason:
In response to your proposed deposition schedule for Oracle's experts, Oracle raises the following issues and
conditions.
First, in addition to the below concerns, the dates you provide for Mr. Meyer and Mr. Mandia are unworkable
given that their supplemental reports are not even submitted (again, per our prior emails, because of Defendants'
delays in providing necessary inputs). We currently plan to serve an additional errata for Mr. Mandia within a
week, and a supplemental report in February. Mr. Meyer's supplemental report awaits Defendants' benchmark
material and will be provided in a reasonable time after its receipt and after Mr. Mandia's supplemental analysis of
Defendants' late-provided database discovery.
Second, the proposed schedule appears to deviate from standard practice. We note that you do not confirm that
the proposed dates would be the only depositions of Oracle's experts, a condition on which we have insisted (and
is normal) from the beginning of our discussions. Given that Oracle's experts will be considering and likely
responding at trial to Defendant's experts, depositions of them taken before they have had a chance to review
Defendants' experts' reports will not preclude Oracle's experts from providing responsive opinions to Defendants'
experts' opinions at trial. If you want to know what those will be, you need to take Oracle's experts' depositions
after they have had adequate time to digest your experts' reports. Of course, if there are Oracle experts
whose reports you do not intend to respond to with expert opinions, those experts could be deposed before your
expert reports are submitted without any danger of unknown additional responsive opinions at trial. Accordingly,
unless you are prepared to agree that these are the only depositions you will get of Plaintiffs' experts, these
depositions need to be scheduled in coordination with Defendants' experts starting in mid to late May.
Third, we continue to resist three days of deposition of any expert. It is too much and unnecessary given the
detail provided in the reports and given the scope of expert depositions that need to be done in what seems the
logical timeframe for both sides to take depositions to secure full trial testimony.
Once we know your positions on these topics, we can work on scheduling.
Thanks, Holly

Page 2 of 4

From: Jason McDonell [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 3:18 PM
To: House, Holly
Cc: Donnelly, Amy; Hann, Bree; Russell, Chad; Pickett, Donn; Elaine Wallace; Howard, Geoff; Jane L Froyd;
Joshua L Fuchs; Polito, John A.; Lee, Lisa; Jindal, Nitin; 'Scott Cowan'; Alinder, Zachary J.; Patrick Delahunty;
Greg Lanier; Jacqueline K. S. Lee; Jeffrey M Butler
Subject: Supplemental Discovery and Expert Deposition Scheduling
Counsel,
We write to update you on our response to Judge Laporte's Order on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and on
scheduling of depositions of Plaintiffs' experts.

TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT

Expert Depositions
On the subject of expert deposition scheduling, we propose the following dates:
Tourniaire
Lichtman
Levy
Meyer
Mandia
Pinto

February 2
February 12
February 19
February 22, 23, and 24.
March 3, 4, and 5.
March 16.

We continue to believe that three days each is reasonable for the depositions of Mr. Mandia and Mr. Meyer, given
the complexity of the issues and volume of material to be covered. Oracle has taken numerous multi-day
depositions of fact witnesses in this case. We are prepared to demonstrate that fact to Judge Laporte and we
believe that three days is not an unreasonable request for these two expert witnesses.

Page 3 of 4

Please let us know if this schedule will work.
Thanks.
Jason McDonell, Esq.
Jones Day
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104-1500
SF Office Main Tel.: [phone]
Direct Dial: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

From:

"House, Holly" <[e-mail]>

To:

"Jason McDonell" <[e-mail]>, "'Scott Cowan'" <[e-mail]>, "Jane L Froyd" <[e-mail]>,
"Elaine Wallace" <[e-mail]>, "Joshua L Fuchs" <[e-mail]>

Cc:

"Howard, Geoff" <[e-mail]>, "Pickett, Donn" <[e-mail]>, "Alinder, Zachary J."
<[e-mail]>, "Hann, Bree" <[e-mail]>, "Polito, John A." <[e-mail]>, "Russell,
Chad" <[e-mail]>, "Donnelly, Amy" <[e-mail]>, "Jindal, Nitin" <[e-mail]>, "Lee,
Lisa" <[e-mail]>

Date:

01/08/2010 02:33 PM

Subject:

Defendants' overdue productions and answers and impact on Oracle expert reports and depositions

Jason, Scott and all:
We continue to await Defendants' overdue provision of material necessary to finalize supplementation of our
experts' reports. This includes the benchmark license information Magistrate Laporte ordered Defendants produce
on December 2, 2009, for which Oracle provided a proposal on December 3, and which Defendants promised
would be produced and answered before Christmas; a response to Mr. Jindal's December 22 complaint about
Defendants' deficient response to Oracle's Interrogatory No. 69 about customer valuation metrics, and production
of Data Warehouse materials requested by Mr. Polito on December 4.
Please be advised that Defendants' continued delays will not justify pushing depositions of Oracle's experts into
the period where Oracle will be analyzing and drafting oppositions to Defendants' promised summary judgment
motions. Oracle's counsel cannot and will not be pressed into defending depositions then just because
Defendants have delayed in providing the necessary information to allow for finalization of Oracle's experts'
reports and securing Oracle's experts' depositions when there has been ample time to do so. Specifically, Oracle
offers at this time to make Mr. Mandia available for deposition on February 18-19.
Please advise when we can expect Defendants' overdue information, if you accept Mr.Mandia's offered dates,
and when you would like to schedule Oracle's other experts' depositions so we can start that difficult scheduling
process.
Regards,
Holly

________________________________

Page 4 of 4

Confidentiality Notice: The information in this e-mail (including attachments, if any) is considered
confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. Any review, use, disclosure,
distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient.
If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by reply email, delete this
email, and do not disclose its contents to anyone.
Bingham McCutchen LLP Circular 230 Notice: To ensure compliance with IRS requirements, we
inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding any federal
tax penalties. Any legal advice expressed in this message is being delivered to you solely for your
use in connection with the matters addressed herein and may not be relied upon by any other
person or entity or used for any other purpose without our prior written consent.

==========
This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by
attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without
copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.
==========