Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al
Filing
1151
Declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier in Support of 1150 Opposition/Response to Motion,, 1149 Opposition/Response to Motion, Declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier in Support of Defendants' Oppositions to Oracle's Motions for Leave to File Motions for Reconsideration Regarding (1) Saved Development Costs and (2) Up-Sell and Cross-Sell Projections, and Motion for Clarification 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)(Related document(s) 1150 , 1149 ) (Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 5/1/2012)
EXHIBIT 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE HONORABLE PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, JUDGE
ORACLE CORPORATION, ET AL.
)
)
PLAINTIFFS,
)
)
VS.
)
)
SAP AG, ET AL.,
)
)
DEFENDANTS.
)
____________________________)
JURY TRIAL
NO. C 07-01658 PJH
VOLUME 5
PAGES 754 - 946
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2010
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
APPEARANCES:
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
BY:
BY:
BINGHAM MUCCUTCHEN LLP
THREE EMBARCADERO CENTER
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-4607
ZACHARY J. ALINDER,
HOLLY A. HOUSE,
GEOFFREY M. HOWARD,
DONN P. PICKETT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
1999 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 900
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
DAVID BOIES,
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(APPEARANCES CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)
REPORTED BY:
RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR NO. 8258
DIANE E. SKILLMAN, CSR NO. 4909
RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 451-7530
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 808
TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION
4
MR. McDONELL:
THERE IS ONE NEW DEVELOPMENT, YOUR
5
HONOR, WHICH IS OVER THE WEEKEND, THE PLAINTIFFS PRODUCED
6
DEMONSTRATIVE SLIDES FOR THEIR DAMAGES EXPERT ALONG WITH CERTAIN
7
BACKUP MATERIALS FOR THEM.
8
PRESENTED ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO MEASUREMENT OF THE
9
HYPOTHETICAL LICENSE VALUE OF DAMAGES, ONE THAT INCLUDES UPSELL
AND WHAT PLAINTIFFS HAVE DONE NOW IS
10
AND CROSS-SELL COMPUTATIONS THAT PRODUCES ONE NUMBER, AND AN
11
ALTERNATIVE SET OF SLIDES THAT EXCLUDES THE UPSELL AND
12
CROSS-SELL AND PRODUCES A -- A DIFFERENT AND LOWER NUMBER.
13
WE THINK THIS JUST CONFIRMS WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING
14
ALL ALONG, THAT THESE CROSS-SELL AND UPSELL SALE OPPORTUNITIES
15
HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THEIR FAIR MARKET VALUE LICENSE APPROACH
16
ALL ALONG, IN CONTRAVENTION OF YOUR ORDER THAT THEY SHALL NOT
17
USE THIS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ANYTHING, INCLUDING THE FAIR
18
MARKET VALUE MEASURE OF DAMAGES.
19
MR. PICKETT:
20
THE COURT:
21
MR. PICKETT:
WE DON'T.
OKAY.
GO AHEAD.
HERE -- HERE IS -- HERE IS WHY I SAY
22
THAT.
23
ARE NOT SEEKING ANY CHANGE IN ANY PRIOR ORDER.
24
WITH ALL OF YOUR ORDERS REGARDING THE EVIDENCE OF LOST PROFITS
25
ON SOFTWARE SALES, ALSO KNOWN AS LOST CROSS-SELL/UPSELL SALES,
AND LET ME BE CLEARER THAN I WAS FRIDAY AFTERNOON.
WE
WE ARE COMPLYING
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 809
1
BOTH FOR THE LOST PROFIT MEASURES AND FOR THE FAIR MARKET VALUE
2
OF USE MEASURE.
3
HOWEVER -- AND THAT RULING, AS YOUR HONOR KNOWS, IS
4
BASED ON A FINDING THAT ORACLE -- WE DISAGREE WITH IT -- BUT
5
THAT ORACLE FAILED TO PRODUCE TIMELY THAT EVIDENCE.
6
HOWEVER, WE ARE INTENDING TO RELY ON THE BOARD MODEL
7
THAT MR. ELLISON JUST TESTIFIED ABOUT AS MR. LANIER WAS ASKING
8
QUESTIONS ON CROSS.
9
WITHIN PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT 615, AND I HAVE TWO PAGES -- OR THREE
SPECIFICALLY, IT'S DATA THAT'S CONTAINED
10
PAGES, RATHER, FROM THAT.
11
TERRIBLY LEGIBLE, BUT I THINK IT WILL GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT
12
I'M TALKING ABOUT.
13
IT'S DATA.
FRANKLY, IT'S NOT
(EXHIBIT PUBLISHED TO JURY.)
14
MR. PICKETT:
15
YEAH, YOU CAN PUT THAT UP IF YOU WISH.
16
17
AND I HAVE A COPY FOR COUNSEL.
(EXHIBIT PUBLISHED TO JURY.)
MR. PICKETT:
WHAT THIS IS, IS THIS IS GOING TO BE --
18
THIS IS, IN A SENSE, AN OFFER OF PROOF.
BUT THIS IS A DOCUMENT
19
THAT MS. CATZ WILL BE TESTIFYING ABOUT.
IT'S A DOCUMENT THAT
20
WAS PRODUCED TIMELY.
21
MR. ELLISON, MR. PHILLIPS, MS. CATZ.
22
WITH RESPECT TO TIMELINESS AND WHAT IT SHOWS.
23
IT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE DEPOSITIONS OF
FULLY PRODUCED, NO ISSUE
IT SHOWS THE DATA THAT WAS PRESENTED IN THAT BOARD
24
MODEL TO SUPPORT THE PEOPLESOFT ACQUISITION.
25
CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS, NOT BASED, BY THE WAY, ON ANY INTERNAL DATA
AND THERE ARE
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 810
1
BECAUSE IT WAS A HOSTILE TAKE-OVER, YOUR HONOR WILL RECALL.
2
THERE'S NO INSIDE INFORMATION.
3
INFORMATION.
4
SO
IT'S JUST PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
BUT IT IS THE BEST -- AND OUR EXPERT WILL SAY VERY,
5
VERY GOOD EVIDENCE OF WHAT WAS IN THE MINDS OF ORACLE IN LATE
6
2004 WITH RESPECT TO THE PEOPLESOFT ACQUISITION AND, THEREFORE,
7
WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE MIND A FEW WEEKS LATER WHEN THERE
8
WAS A -- IN THE HYPOTHETICAL A NEGOTIATION IN JANUARY 2005 ABOUT
9
THIS PROPERTY.
10
NOW, THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT OBJECTED TO BY PLAINTIFFS
11
(SIC), EXCEPT FOR ONE LIMITED USE.
12
DOCUMENT.
13
THE COURT:
14
MR. PICKETT:
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. PICKETT:
17
NOT OBJECTED TO BY SAP.
THEY AGREE THAT THE
BY DEFENDANTS.
WHAT DID I SAY?
"OBJECTED TO BY PLAINTIFFS."
IT'S TOO OFTEN I'M ON THE OTHER SIDE.
THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT'S A
18
BUSINESS RECORD.
19
RESPECT TO THE MAINTENANCE REVENUES ARE -- ARE LEGITIMATE, CAN
20
BE USED BY OUR EXPERT, CAN BE USED BY THEIR EXPERT FOR THAT
21
MATTER.
22
THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE ASSUMPTIONS WITH
THAT'S ALL IN.
WHAT THEY DO OBJECT TO ARE FOUR LINES OF THIS THAT
23
HAVE TO DO WITH THE ADDITIONAL SALES OF APPLICATIONS -- OF
24
APPLICATION SOFTWELL (SIC) -- THE UPSELL IN THE VERNACULAR OF
25
THE CASE THAT ARE IN THIS DOCUMENT AND THAT ARE -- THE ONLY
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 811
1
THING USED BY OUR EXPERT BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
2
EXPECTATIONS.
3
THE ACTUAL SALES -- THE THING THAT STARTED THIS WHOLE
4
THING, THAT WASN'T PRODUCED ARE NOT RELEVANT.
5
HANSON CASE AND OTHERS.
6
BASED ON A HINDSIGHT EVALUATION OF WHAT HAPPENED.
7
BASED ON WHAT'S IN THE MIND OF THE PARTIES AT THE TIME OF
8
NEGOTIATION.
9
AND THAT'S THE
THE -- THE NEGOTIATION'S NOT TO BE
IT'S TO BE
AND TO BE SORT OF CRYSTAL CLEAR ABOUT IT, YOUR HONOR,
10
THIS TYPE OF DATA WAS PRECISELY THE DATA THAT WE PUT IN TO THE
11
DECLARATION OF PAUL MEYER OUR DAMAGE EXPERT BACK WHEN THE
12
FIRST -- THE FIRST PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PRESENTED
13
TO YOUR HONOR.
14
AND HE SAID I'VE GOT --
YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PROJECTION.
AND A PROJECTION IS
15
DIFFERENT THAN ACTUAL SALES AFTER THE FACT.
16
YOU KNOW, RELY ON PROJECTIONS.
17
CHALLENGING THIS WHOLE HYPOTHETICAL LICENSE NEGOTIATION
18
APPROACH, YOU'LL RECALL.
19
NEGOTIATION IS A VALUE OF USE.
20
DAMAGES, AND YOU REITERATED THAT IN AN ORDER, AUGUST 17, AS WELL
21
AND ACTUALLY OVERRULED THEIR OBJECTIONS TO THIS VERY EVIDENCE.
AND I'M GOING TO,
AND YOUR HONOR -- AND THEY WERE
YOUR HONOR SAID NO, THE HYPOTHETICAL
IT'S A LEGITIMATE MEASURE OF
22
YOU OVERRULED AN OBJECTION LAST YEAR IN YOUR
23
JANUARY 28TH, 2010 RULING ON THIS WITH RESPECT TO THESE
24
PROJECTIONS.
25
LEGITIMATELY, GET INTO IT.
THIS IS WHY YOU CAN, I THINK ABSOLUTELY
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 812
1
AND -- ONE LAST POINT -- IF THERE ARE ANY DOUBT ABOUT
2
THIS, DEFENDANTS HAVE REPEATEDLY OPENED THE DOOR TO THIS VERY
3
ISSUE OF WHAT WOULD BE IN THE MINDS OF ORACLE WITH RESPECT TO
4
UPSELL, NOT THE ACTUAL SALES AFTER THE FACT.
5
MIND WHEN THEY COME TO THE NEGOTIATION TABLE.
6
WHAT'S IN THEIR
THEY DID IT IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT IN TWO MAJOR
7
WAYS.
8
ABOUT IT.
9
WEIGHS ALL THE INDICATIONS OF VALUE AND COMES OUT WITH A VALUE
10
FIRST, THEY PUT FORWARD OUR -- WE HAVE A -- BE VERY CLEAR
IF THE UPSELL IS IN THE MIND OF ORACLE, OUR EXPERT
FOR THE PEOPLESOFT LICENSE OF AT LEAST $2 BILLION.
11
IF THE UPSELL IS TAKEN OUT, AND IT'S ONLY
12
MAINTENANCE, THEN THE VALUE OF THE LICENSE IS DECREASED.
13
DECREASES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 1.5 -- AT LEAST 1.5 BILLION.
14
KNOWING THAT THE $2 BILLION FIGURE -- OUR $2 BILLION FIGURE WAS
15
BASED ON THIS -- THE PROJECTION IN -- IN THE DOCUMENT 615,
16
KNOWING THAT IT INCLUDED UPSELL, THE -- THE DEFENDANTS TELL THE
17
JURY THAT ORACLE'S GOING TO ASK FOR $2 BILLION, QUOTE, BECAUSE
18
THEY SUPPOSEDLY THOUGHT A REALLY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THEIR
19
PEOPLESOFT CUSTOMERS WERE GOING TO GO TO TOMORROWNOW AND THEN TO
20
SAP.
21
PAGE 412, LINE 13 TO 17 OF THE TRANSCRIPT.
22
AND THEN TO SAP.
THAT'S THE CROSS-SELL.
AND SO THAT ALONE SHOULD BE ENOUGH.
IT
SO
THAT'S AT
BUT IT GOT
23
WORSE.
24
REFERENCE TO MR. HENLEY, ORACLE'S CHAIRMAN, ABOUT WHICH THEY
25
SAID THE EVIDENCE WAS GOING TO BE ABOUT SWITCHING FROM
BECAUSE EVEN LATER IN THE OPENING STATEMENT, THERE WAS A
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 813
1
PEOPLESOFT TO SAP AND THE -- AND THE HIGH EXPECTATIONS -- THIS
2
IS A QUOTE -- HIGH EXPECTATIONS THAT TOMORROWNOW IS GOING TO
3
TAKE AWAY A LOT OF VALUABLE BUSINESS, MEANING THE SWITCH -- IT'S
4
CALLED UPSWITCH OR UPSELL -- FROM PEOPLESOFT TO -- TO SAP.
5
AND THEN EVEN TODAY -- EVEN TODAY, WE GET IT AGAIN.
6
WE HAVE EXHIBIT 4089 FROM MR. HENLEY TO MS. CATZ.
7
QUESTION WAS, WHAT WAS THE CHAIRMAN'S THINKING AT THE TIME.
8
THEY GET THE ISSUE.
9
ORACLE'S MIND WHEN IT COMES TO THE NEGOTIATION TABLE.
AND THE
THEY UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S ABOUT WHAT'S IN
AND THE
10
QUESTION WAS, WHAT WAS MR. HENLEY'S THINKING AT THE TIME WITH
11
RESPECT TO, QUOTE, A SWITCH FROM PEOPLESOFT TO SAP.
12
THAT'S OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF SAP'S LAWYERS, REPEATED
13
QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW MANY CUSTOMERS SAP COULD GET, NOT
14
TOMORROWNOW.
15
AND THEN FINALLY, REFERENCE TO THE BOARD MODEL ITSELF
16
IN WHICH MR. ELLISON TESTIFIED THAT WE PREPARED TO THE BOARD A
17
MODEL TO JUSTIFY OUR $11 BILLION.
18
EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THE PEOPLESOFT ACQUISITION.
19
EXPECTATIONS ARE WHAT IS IN THE MIND OF SAP -- OF ORACLE WHEN IT
20
COMES TO THAT NEGOTIATING TABLE.
21
DO WITH AFTER-THE-FACT SALES THAT YOUR HONOR AND MAGISTRATE
22
JUDGE LAPORTE FOUND DIDN'T COME IN.
23
WE HAVE TO -- WE HAVE CERTAIN
THOSE VERY SAME
AND, AGAIN, IT HAS NOTHING TO
IT'S JUST WHAT'S IN THEIR MIND LATE 2004,
24
JANUARY 2005.
25
DATA.
THAT'S ALL WE'RE RELYING ON, THIS SINGLE SET OF
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 814
1
MR. McDONELL:
YOUR HONOR, COUPLE OF THINGS.
FIRST
2
OF ALL IN TERMS OF THE MENTION OF THESE VARIOUS THINGS COUNSEL
3
JUST TALKED ABOUT, THOSE WERE GENERIC; NONE OF THEM WERE IN THE
4
CONTEXT OF THIS PRECISE ISSUE, UPSELL AND CROSS-SELL.
5
REALLY DID NOT PRESENT THAT ISSUE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.
6
THEY
THERE CERTAINLY IS EXPECTATION EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES
7
THAT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE.
8
NOW IS ENFORCING THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE SANCTIONS ORDER THAT
9
RESULTED IN YOUR ORDER ADOPTING IT AND RESULTED IN THE ORDERS ON
10
11
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE
MOTIONS IN LIMINE.
AND, AGAIN, IT IS CLEAR NOW THAT -- THAT UPSELL AND
12
CROSS-SELL IS IN THESE NUMBERS.
13
VERY QUICKLY OF MY OWN, YOUR HONOR, TO SHOW YOU REALLY THE --
14
THE PRECISE THING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
15
16
AND IF I JUST MAY HAVE A SLIDE
(EXHIBIT PUBLISHED TO JURY.)
MR. McDONELL:
17
NO, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
(EXHIBIT PUBLISHED TO JURY.)
18
MR. McDONELL:
19
IT'S ONE OF THE SUPPORT SHEETS THAT'S LIKE AN EXCEL
20
21
22
NO.
SPREADSHEET.
(EXHIBIT PUBLISHED TO JURY.)
MR. McDONELL:
YOUR HONOR, HERE IS THE BACKUP SUPPORT
23
FOR THEIR CURRENT VERSION OF THEIR -- EITHER AS COUNSEL
24
MENTIONED, 2 BILLION OR APPROXIMATELY $1.5 BILLION CLAIM, ONE
25
WITHOUT UPSELL AND CROSS-SELL, ONE THAT INCLUDES IT.
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 815
1
THIS IS THE BACKUP SUPPORT FOR THE LARGER NUMBER THAT
2
SHOWS AS CLEAR AS CAN BE THAT WHAT THEY'RE INCLUDING IN
3
COMPUTING THAT NUMBER IS LOST INCREMENTAL REVENUE -- UPSELL LOST
4
INCREMENTAL REVENUE -- WELL, THE NEXT ONE, IF I COULD SEE IT, IS
5
THE SAME FOR CROSS-SELL.
6
THEY BUILD THE $2.1 BILLION CLAIM.
7
THOSE NUMBERS ARE FOUNDATIONS ON WHICH
THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING HERE IS TWO-FOLD.
8
ONE, YOU KNOW, THEY DRAW THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN A LOST
9
OPPORTUNITY TO UPSELL AND CROSS-SELL AND A LOST EXPECTED
10
OPPORTUNITY TO UPSELL AND CROSS-SELL.
11
YOUR HONOR, THAT'S A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A
12
DIFFERENCE.
13
WHETHER YOU CALL IT A LOST OPPORTUNITY OR A LOST EXPECTED
14
OPPORTUNITY, IT'S THE SAME THING.
15
EVIDENCE OF THIS CASE THE SAME WAY, BECAUSE YOU'LL SEE WHAT WE
16
HAVE HERE.
LOST PROFITS ARE PROFITS THAT WERE NEVER MADE, SO
AND IT PLAYS OUT IN THE
AND IT'S, FRANKLY --
17
FRANKLY, DIFFICULT FOR ME TO STAY OUT OF THE WAY.
18
MAY I USE YOUR MICROPHONE, MR. PICKETT?
19
MR. PICKETT:
20
MR. McDONELL:
SURE.
IT'S NOT A OPRAH MIKE, BUT --
YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO
21
FIRST PRINCIPLES, AND WHAT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE HARM WE'RE
22
TALKING ABOUT HERE?
23
AND CROSS-SELL INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THESE COMPANIES,
24
PEOPLESOFT AND SIEBEL HAD ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED OVER TIME GOING
25
ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE PERIOD SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE THOSE
WHAT WE DID NOT GET WAS HISTORICAL UPSELL
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 816
1
ACQUISITIONS.
2
INSTEAD, WHAT WE DO HAVE ARE JUST THESE ISOLATED
3
UNSUPPORTED PROJECTIONS, WHICH, AS COUNSEL HAS NOW TOLD YOU,
4
ARE -- ARE THE FOUNDATION OF THEIR CLAIM OF THIS $11 BILLION
5
VALUE.
6
7
8
9
10
THE COURT:
LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
THESE
PROJECTIONS NOW ARE BASED UPON PRE-JANUARY 2005 SALES FIGURES.
MR. McDONELL:
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE BASED ON.
THEY'RE SIMPLY PROJECTIONS WHICH ARE PRESUMABLY -THE COURT:
WELL, EXCUSE ME.
THERE ARE DATES ON AT
11
LEAST THE ONE THAT COUNSEL GAVE ME, AND IT'S SEPTEMBER OF '03;
12
IS THAT CORRECT?
13
MR. McDONELL:
14
THE COURT:
YES.
SO --
AND SEPTEMBER OF '04.
IT'S THROUGH
15
DECEMBER OF '04.
16
POST-DATE ARE SOMEWHAT PROBLEMATIC, BUT THOSE THAT PREDATE
17
AREN'T REALLY THE SAME THING WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
18
THE -- IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE ONES THAT
MR. McDONELL:
THEY'RE EQUALLY, IF NOT MORE,
19
IMPORTANT BECAUSE THESE ARE PROJECTIONS, YOUR HONOR.
20
PROJECTION IS JUST A NUMBER A PERSON WRITES DOWN ON A PAGE.
21
WHETHER THEY BASE THAT PROJECTION IN A WAY THAT CLOSELY HEWS
22
WITH SOME HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT MAKES THE PROJECTION
23
RELIABLE, DEPENDABLE, IMPORTANT, OR NOT, IS THE CRUX OF WHAT
24
WE'RE GETTING AT HERE.
25
THE COURT:
OKAY.
A
AND
LOOK, I THINK THAT I CAN MAKE THIS
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 817
1
EASY FOR BOTH OF YOU.
2
ADDRESS.
3
THERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED TO
FIRST OF ALL, NO DISTINCTION WAS MADE BETWEEN THE
4
ACTUAL LOST PROFITS BASED UPON THE -- THE POST-JANUARY 2005
5
PERIOD AND THE PROJECTIONS WHICH WERE BASED UPON PREVIOUS SALES
6
ACTIVITY ON ORACLE'S PART.
7
EITHER IN JUDGE LAPORTE'S ORDER IN THE -- AT THE TIME OF THE
8
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE WHEN THE WHOLE SECOND ISSUE WITH REGARD TO
9
UPSELL AND RESALE APPEARED.
10
THERE WAS NO DISTINCTION MADE AT
THERE'S NO DISTINCTION.
THE FIRST THIS EVEN OCCURRED
11
TO ME WAS ON FRIDAY WHEN THE EXHIBIT WAS SHOWN -- SHOWING SAP'S
12
PROJECTIONS.
13
MEANS IN TERMS OF ARGUMENT AS TO ORACLE'S PROJECTIONS.
14
OCCURRED TO ME THAT THERE WAS A DISTINCTION TO BE MADE.
15
I IMMEDIATELY THOUGHT, HMM, I WONDER WHAT THAT
JUDGE LAPORTE'S ORDER DOESN'T ADDRESS IT.
IT NEVER
NO ORDER
16
THAT I'VE ISSUED ADDRESSES THIS.
17
IS ENTIRELY NEW ISSUE.
18
ORDER.
19
KNOW IT WAS AN ISSUE AT THE TIME THAT I ADOPTED THE SANCTIONS
20
ORDER.
AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THIS
IT IS NOT BARRED BY THE PRIOR DISCOVERY
IT COULDN'T CONCEIVABLY BE BARRED WHEN I DIDN'T EVEN
21
SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE
22
SANCTION ORDER, WHETHER OR NOT THE EVIDENCE SHOULD COME IN.
23
THE ONLY QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS PRODUCED IN
24
DISCOVERY.
25
DISCOVERY, THE DIFFICULTY FOR SAP AT THIS POINT IS THAT YOU
AND
AND TO THE EXTENT THAT IT WASN'T PRODUCED IN
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 818
1
DIDN'T RAISE THE MOTION.
2
OF EVIDENTIARY ISSUES.
3
SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF.
4
5
6
YOU ALL RAISED MOTIONS ON ALL MANNER
I CANNOT IMAGINE THAT THIS IS NOT
MR. McDONELL:
YOUR HONOR, THIS -- THIS WAS OUR
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 COUPLED -THE COURT:
NO.
NO.
NO.
THERE WAS NO DISTINCTION
7
MADE WHATSOEVER IN THAT MOTION WITH REGARD TO PROJECTED SALES.
8
THE HYPO- --
9
WHEN I RULED THAT THE LOST REVENUE FROM UPSELL AND
10
CROSS-SELL COULD NOT BE USED TO SUPPORT A HYPOTHETICAL LICENSE,
11
THAT WAS BASED UPON POST-JANUARY 2005 SALES.
12
DISTINCTION MADE WITH RESPECT TO WHAT SALES WERE BEING RELIED
13
UPON BY THE EXPERT AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS INFORMATION WAS
14
IN MR. MEYER'S REPORT FROM A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, I DON'T
15
REMEMBER THAT.
16
CERTAINLY HAD NO INTENTION OF RULING ON THAT SPECIFICALLY.
17
SO THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU HAVE A BASIS NOW FOR
18
19
THERE WAS NO
YOU ALL DID NOT BRING IT TO MY ATTENTION, AND I
KEEPING IT OUT BECAUSE THE FORMER RULING DOES NOT KEEP IT OUT?
MR. McDONELL:
AND WE DO, YOUR HONOR.
AND IT'S --
20
THE COMMUNICATION MAY BE IMPERFECT ON THIS, BUT THE SUBSTANCE OF
21
THE PROBLEM AND THE PREJUDICE REMAINS THE SAME.
22
IS AS FOLLOWS:
23
AND THE BASIS
JUDGE LAPORTE FOUND THAT WE WERE DENIED DISCOVERY OF
24
ACTUAL LICENSE SALES BY THE PLAINTIFFS, EITHER FOR PEOPLESOFT OR
25
SIEBEL, OR FOR ANY OTHER PARTY.
EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL LICENSE --
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 819
1
THE COURT:
2
MR. McDONELL:
AFTER THE INFRINGEMENT BEGAN.
NO, YOUR HONOR.
AT ANY TIME.
WE
3
ASKED FOR DISCOVERY OF -- ALL FINANCIAL INFORMATION RELATING TO
4
THESE ISSUES, AND WE DIDN'T GET IT.
5
AND ONLY ALLOWED REVENUES CONCERNING DELIVERY OF SUPPORT
6
SERVICES.
NO SOFTWARE LICENSE SALES HISTORICAL DATA WAS
7
PRODUCED.
THAT'S A SETTLED ISSUE.
8
THE BOOK IS CLOSED.
9
WE WERE CONSISTENTLY DENIED
JUDGE LAPORTE FOUND THAT.
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
10
HERE AND NOW IS WHY ARE WE PREJUDICED AS A RESULT OF THAT?
11
IT'S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD, AND LET ME BE -- TRY -- TRY TO BE
12
VERY CLEAR.
13
AND
THEY NOW WANT US TO ACCEPT THESE PROJECTIONS AT FACE
14
VALUE.
15
TO ACCEPT THESE PROJECTIONS UPON WHICH THEY FOUND THEIR -- THEIR
16
BILLION-DOLLAR CLAIM.
17
FACE VALUE.
WE NOW HAVE NO CHOICE, THEY WILL SAY, BUT
AND, AGAIN, I GO BACK TO A PROJECTION, WITHOUT MORE,
18
IS JUST SOMEBODY WRITING DOWN ON A PIECE OF PAPER WHAT THEY
19
MIGHT WANT TO SELL.
20
ACTUAL UPSELL AND CROSS-SELL EXPERIENCE BEFORE THE DATE OF THESE
21
PROJECTIONS.
22
ASSESSED THESE PROJECTIONS AND --
23
AND WHAT WE DIDN'T GET WAS THE HISTORICAL
HAD WE HAD THAT EVIDENCE, WE COULD HAVE CRITICALLY
THE COURT:
NOW, ARE YOU SAYING, THEN, THAT THE
24
PROJECTIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED POST-ACQUISITION OF TOMORROWNOW BY
25
SAP, THAT'S POST-JANUARY 2005, ARE BASED UPON THE PRE-2005
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 820
1
SALES, AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU DIDN'T RECEIVE THE UNDERLYING
2
INFORMATION THAT SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN THESE
3
COLUMNS?
4
MR. McDONELL:
WE DIDN'T LEAVE (SIC) THE -- WE DIDN'T
5
GET THE UNDERLYING SUPPORT FOR THE PRE-INFRINGEMENT PERIOD OR
6
THE POST-INFRINGEMENT PERIOD.
7
THE COURT:
8
MR. McDONELL:
9
THE COURT:
10
11
OKAY.
WE HAD NEITHER.
OKAY.
MR. McDONELL:
MR. --
AND AS A RESULT COULD NOT CRITICALLY
ASSESS --
12
THE COURT:
13
NOW, OBVIOUSLY, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ALL RECEIVED
14
-- SHAKING HIS HEAD.
IN DISCOVERY FROM EACH OTHER.
15
MR. PICKETT:
LET ME BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS.
THIS
16
DATA WAS PRODUCED LONG, LONG TIME AGO.
17
MR. ELLISON TESTIFIED.
18
TESTIFIED AT DEPOSITION.
19
TESTIFIED.
20
FIGURES, WHAT WAS IN YOUR MIND?
21
YOU PAID FOR PEOPLESOFT BASED ON THESE ASSUMPTIONS.
22
THE ASSUMPTIONS THE EXPERT IS USING FOR THE -- THE FAIR MARKET
23
VALUE OF USE.
24
25
IT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE
IT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE MS. CATZ
IT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE MR. PHILLIPS
THEY COULD HAVE ASKED ANY ONE OF THEM ABOUT THESE
THIS IS WHAT YOU -- YOU KNOW,
THOSE ARE
THEY COULD HAVE SOUGHT -- THEY DON'T HAVE TO TAKE
THEM AT FACE VALUE.
THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE DISCOVERY
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 821
1
ON IT.
2
THERE'S NO PREJUDICE, UNLIKE IN THE OTHER SITUATION.
3
THAT'S -- THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT AN ISSUE.
THAT'S WHY
NOW, THERE IS SOME CLAIM HERE THAT -- WHICH IS A NEW
4
CLAIM -- SOME PRIOR DATA WAS NOT PRODUCED.
5
THAT.
6
IN THEIR MIND.
7
BUT TWO POINTS ON
FIRST THESE PROJECTIONS ARE THE BEST EVIDENCE OF WHAT'S
AND THEY HAD THOSE.
SECOND, AS I SAID, IT WAS A HOSTILE TAKE-OVER.
THERE
8
WAS NO OTHER INFORMATION OTHER THAN 10K'S AND PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
9
INFORMATION.
AND WHEN WE PUT -- WHEN WE PRESENT THIS, WE WILL
10
LAY THAT FOUNDATION TO SHOW THAT IT'S PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
11
INFORMATION.
12
BUT IT IS THE PROJECTION.
YOU KNOW, LET'S JUST STEP BACK FOR A MOMENT.
THE
13
BIG -- WE ALL KNOW THAT THIS IS A MAINTENANCE BUT THEN THE IDEA
14
IS YOU GET THE APPLICATION SOFTWARE.
15
SOFTWARE, YOU GET MAINTENANCE FOR YOURS.
16
BUSINESS RUNS FOR BOTH SAP AND ORACLE.
17
AND THEN ONCE YOU GET THAT
THAT'S THE WAY THE
AND WE KNOW THAT WHEN A PARTY WOULD BE NEGOTIATING
18
THIS, SAP (SIC) HAD A CERTAIN THING IN MIND.
19
COMBINATION OF MAINTENANCE AND UPSELL WOULD, IN THE FIRST THREE
20
YEARS, COME UP TO ALMOST $900 MILLION.
21
SIDE?
22
THEY THOUGHT THE
WHAT WOULD BE ON THE SAP
WELL, IT'S THIS DATA RIGHT HERE, WHICH, AGAIN, HAS
23
BEEN PRODUCED LONG AGO, FULLY DISCLOSED, FULL OPPORTUNITY TO
24
TAKE DISCOVERY AND.
25
SAY TO MR. ELLISON, WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU THOUGHT THAT IT'S 20 TO
AND IF THEY DISAGREE, AND THEY DO, THEY CAN
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 822
1
30 PERCENT OF THE CUSTOMERS OR 30 PERCENT OF THE CUSTOMERS.
2
THEY CAN CROSS-EXAMINE THAT.
3
THE FAIR THING TO DO IN THIS CASE.
4
5
AND THE JURY CAN DECIDE.
AND
THAT'S
IT'S -- IT'S THE WAY THE SECOND MEASURE OF DAMAGES,
FAIR MARKET VALUE OF USE, IS DETERMINED.
6
THE COURT:
7
MR. McDONELL:
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
YES, YOUR HONOR.
LAST WORD.
THAT WAS JUST A
8
CIRCULAR POINT.
9
DIDN'T NEED AND DON'T NEED DISCOVERY ABOUT THE PROJECTIONS.
HE'S SAYING -- BECAUSE THEY HAVE PROJECTIONS WE
10
HE'S SAYING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE NOW DONE OUR DISCOVERY ON THAT
11
ISSUE HERE IN THIS COURTROOM BY EXAMINING ORACLE EXECUTIVES
12
ABOUT IT.
13
IT'S FAR TOO LATE FOR THAT.
JUDGE LAPORTE WAS CRYSTAL CLEAR IN HER FOCUS ON THE
14
FACT THAT WE HAD NOT RECEIVED A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE IN
15
ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM A CLAIM OF LOST UPSELL AND CROSS-SELL
16
OPPORTUNITIES AS YOU SEE ON THE SLIDE, THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT
17
THEY'RE PRESENTING HERE TODAY.
18
THIS IS A -- IT'S A CONTAINED ISSUE RIGHT NOW.
THEY
19
HAVE DEVELOPED THEIR EXPERT APPROACHES ON THIS PRECISE ISSUE SO
20
THEY'RE PREPARED TO PUT THEIR EXPERT ON TODAY WITH EITHER
21
UPSELL/CROSS-SELL IN OR UPSELL/CROSS-SELL OUT.
22
IT HAS BEEN CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT WE'VE BEEN OBJECTING
23
TO AND ACTING UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS OUT FOR ALL
24
PURPOSES, AND WE ASK THAT YOU ENFORCE WHAT WE HAVE UNDERSTOOD TO
25
BE YOUR ORDER.
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 823
1
THE COURT:
AND THE -- THE -- IS MR. PICKETT NOT
2
CORRECT THAT YOU HAD THIS PARTICULAR DATA, AND ARE YOU TELLING
3
ME THAT YOU CHOSE NOT TO TAKE DISCOVERY ON THIS PARTICULAR DATA
4
BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT THAT IT WAS BLOCKED BY JUDGE LAPORTE'S
5
ORDER?
6
MR. McDONELL:
7
THE COURT:
8
NO.
AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, I DON'T QUITE --
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS.
9
MR. McDONELL:
HERE'S THE POINT, YOUR HONOR.
BY THE
10
TIME IT BECAME KNOWN THAT ORACLE WAS SEEKING DAMAGES BEYOND LOST
11
SUPPORT PROFITS, IT WAS FAR, FAR LATE IN THE FACT DISCOVERY
12
PERIOD; IN FACT, JUST MONTHS FROM THE CLOSE OF FACT DISCOVERY.
13
THE ISSUE GOT LITIGATED BEFORE JUDGE LAPORTE AND THEN
14
LITIGATED BEFORE YOUR HONOR THROUGH THE OBJECTIONS, AND JUDGE
15
LAPORTE FOUND THAT THIS WAS OUT OF BOUNDS, PERIOD.
16
PURPOSES OF YOUR ADOPTING ORDER, WE UNDERSTOOD THAT YOU TOOK
17
THAT EVEN ONE STEP TOWARDS FURTHER CLARIFICATION BY SAYING THIS
18
IS NOT COMING IN THROUGH THE BACK DOOR EITHER.
19
AND FOR
WE UNDERSTOOD THAT LOST UPSELL AND CROSS-SELL
20
OPPORTUNITIES WERE OFF THE TABLE.
21
DOCUMENTS.
22
THE COURT:
YES, WE HAD SOME PROJECTION
SO YOU THINK THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
23
ACTUAL SALES, WHICH IS WHAT I WAS CONCENTRATING ON, AS OPPOSED
24
TO THE PROJECTED SALES -- YOU THINK THERE'S NO -- YOU HAVE
25
CONSTRUED THE ORDER AS NOT PROVIDING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 824
1
2
TWO.
MR. McDONELL:
IT'S MORE THAT -- IT -- IT'S -- THE
3
SUBSTANCE I COME BACK TO IS WE DIDN'T HAVE ACTUAL DATA EITHER
4
BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE INFRINGEMENT.
5
COULDN'T ASSESS THE -- THE CREDIBILITY OF THE PROJECTIONS AT THE
6
TIME THEY'RE MADE OR WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT, WHICH THE
7
CASE LAW PERMITS.
8
9
10
11
THE COURT:
AND SO WE
SO YOUR EXPERT DIDN'T LOOK AT THE
PROJECTIONS AND HAS NO OPINION AS TO THE MERIT OF THE
PROJECTIONS?
MR. McDONELL:
HE HAS -- HE WILL HAVE OPINIONS.
HE
12
WILL, HOWEVER, STATE THAT HE HAS BEEN -- AND HE HAS STATED THIS
13
IN THE DECLARATION HE FILED WITH JUDGE LAPORTE, THAT HE'S BEEN
14
SEVERELY LIMITATED (PHONETIC) -- LIMITED IN HIS ABILITY TO
15
CHALLENGE HIM BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE THE UNDERLYING DATA.
16
17
AND HE IS -- AS A RESULT, THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF
PRESSURE ON OUR SIDE TO SIMPLY ACCEPT THEM.
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. PICKETT:
20
THE COURT:
21
MR. PICKETT:
22
THE COURT:
OKAY.
I DON'T QUITE --
I NEED TO CORRECT -EXCUSE ME.
EXCUSE ME.
SORRY.
I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW I'M SUPPOSED TO
23
RESOLVE IT WITH ONE SIDE SAYING THE DATA HAS BEEN PROVIDED AND
24
THE OTHER SIDE SAYING WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS AND HAVEN'T HAD
25
ACCESS TO THE UNDERLYING DATA.
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 825
1
GENERALLY, THESE KINDS OF MATTERS ARE DETERMINED
2
BEFORE TRIAL.
3
THESE, SHE MADE A DETERMINATION.
4
TO ME THAT THERE WAS THE DISTINCTION THAT YOU'RE NOW DRAWING.
5
WHEN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE LAPORTE LOOKED AT
I AFFIRMED IT.
DIDN'T OCCUR
YOU ALL NEED TO GIVE ME SOME ASSISTANCE IN
6
DETERMINING HOW I'M SUPPOSED TO DECIDE AN ISSUE OF -- DISCOVERY
7
ISSUE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED BEFORE TRIAL.
8
9
10
MR. PICKETT:
THING.
LET ME BE CRYSTAL CLEAR ABOUT ONE
THIS DATA WAS PRODUCED PRIOR TO THEIR FILING THE RULE 37
MOTION WITH MAGISTRATE JUDGE LAPORTE.
11
THE DEPOSITIONS OF MR. ELLISON, MS. CATZ,
12
MR. PHILLIPS WERE PRIOR TO THEIR MOTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
LAPORTE.
14
IF THEY HAD SOME QUARREL WITH WHAT THESE PROJECTIONS
15
WERE OR WHETHER THERE WAS SOMETHING MORE THEY NEEDED, OR THERE
16
WAS SOMETHING MISSING, WOULDN'T THEY HAVE TOLD JUDGE LAPORTE
17
ABOUT IT RATHER THAN TRYING TO SWEEP THIS IN NOW AND SAY THAT
18
WELL, PROJECTIONS, YOU KNOW, AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH.
19
ARE PRECISELY THE ISSUE.
20
PROJECTIONS
KEEP IN MIND THE CASE LAW ON THIS HYPOTHETICAL
21
NEGOTIATION.
22
IT'S BASED ON PROJECTIONS IN THE MIND AT THE TIME.
23
EVIDENCE.
24
IT'S FAR TOO LATE TO COME IN HERE NOW AND TRY AND CUT THIS OUT,
25
PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY'VE OPENED THE DOOR AGAIN AND AGAIN AND
IT'S NOT BASED ON -- YOU KNOW, AFTER THE FACT.
THEY'VE HAD IT.
THAT'S THIS
THEY'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY -- AND
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Page 826
1
AGAIN.
2
MR. McDONELL:
YOUR HONOR, LET'S COME BACK TO WHAT'S
3
BEEN PRECLUDED.
4
CLAIMS FOR LOST UPSELL AND CROSS-SELL OPPORTUNITIES.
5
OPPORTUNITIES.
6
GET IN CROSS-SELL AND UPSELL IS NOTHING MORE THAN A PROJECTION
7
OF THAT OPPORTUNITY.
8
9
JUDGE LAPORTE PRECLUDED THEM FROM PURSUING
A PROJECTION OF WHAT THEY THINK THEY'RE GOING TO
IT'S AN EMBODIMENT OF THAT OPPORTUNITY.
JUDGE LAPORTE FOUND THAT WE HAD NOT HAD ADEQUATE
DISCOVERY ON THAT ISSUE TO CHALLENGE IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
10
WE STILL HAVE NOT HAD IT.
11
POWER AND AUTHORITY TO SIMPLY AFFIRM THAT RULING AND ALLOW
12
PLAINTIFFS TO PROCEED WITH THEIR ALTERNATIVE THEORY THAT THEIR
13
EXPERT'S READY TO PROCEED WITH HERE TODAY.
14
THE COURT:
IT IS ABSOLUTELY WITHIN THE COURT'S
RIGHT.
RIGHT.
WELL, I THINK YOU'VE BOTH
15
MADE GOOD ARGUMENTS.
16
COURT AT THE TIME OF THE PRETRIAL RULING.
17
THE DEFENSE POSITION.
18
OPPORTUNITY IS CLOSE ENOUGH.
19
IT CLEARLY WASN'T CONTEMPLATED BY THE
BUT I'M PERSUADED BY
I THINK IT'S CLOSE ENOUGH -- I THINK
I'M GOING TO REAFFIRM THE RULING.
UPSELL,
20
CROSS-SELL, WHICH I HAVE DENIED ALL ALONG, CONTINUES TO BE
21
DENIED.
TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION
Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, CRR, FCRR & Diane E. Skillman, CSR, RPR, FCRR
5aa486af-96d5-4092-b078-2f276d575630
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?