Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1206

Declaration of Nargues Motamed in Support of 1202 Statement Joint Statement in Support of Evidentiary Issues filed byOracle International Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-0059, # 2 Exhibit A-6329-1, # 3 Exhibit A-0367, # 4 Exhibit A-5042, # 5 Exhibit A-5997, # 6 Exhibit A-6042-1, # 7 Exhibit A-6205-1, # 8 Exhibit A-5193, # 9 Exhibit A-5995, # 10 Exhibit A-5058, # 11 Exhibit A-5002-1, # 12 Exhibit A, # 13 Exhibit B, # 14 Exhibit C, # 15 Exhibit D, # 16 Exhibit E, # 17 Exhibit F, # 18 Exhibit G, # 19 Exhibit H, # 20 Exhibit I, # 21 Exhibit J, # 22 Exhibit K, # 23 Exhibit L, # 24 Exhibit M, # 25 Exhibit N, # 26 Exhibit PTX 0008, # 27 Exhibit PTX 0014, # 28 Exhibit PTX 0161, # 29 Exhibit O, # 30 Exhibit P, # 31 Exhibit Q, # 32 Exhibit R, # 33 Exhibit PTX 4809, # 34 Exhibit PTX 4819, # 35 Exhibit PTX 0012, # 36 Exhibit PTX 0024, # 37 Exhibit PTX 0960, # 38 Exhibit PTX 7028, # 39 Exhibit S, # 40 Exhibit T, # 41 Exhibit U, # 42 Exhibit V, # 43 Exhibit W, # 44 Exhibit PTX 8040, # 45 Exhibit PTX 2582, # 46 Exhibit X, # 47 Exhibit Y, # 48 Exhibit PTX 8112, # 49 Exhibit PTX 8111, # 50 Exhibit PTX 8108)(Related document(s) 1202 ) (Howard, Geoffrey) (Filed on 8/2/2012)

RICHARD CUMMINS
September 23, 2008
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 256
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
--O0o-ORACLE CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation; ORACLE, USA, INC.,
a Colorado Corporation, and
ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
a California Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
Vs.

No. 07-CV-01658-PJH (EDL)

SAP AG, a German Corporation,
SAP AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
CORPORATION, TOMORROWNOW, INC.,
a Texas Corporation, and DOES
1-50, Inclusive,
Defendants.
_______________________________/

VIDEOTAPED RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF
ORACLE CORPORATION
Designee:

RICHARD CUMMINS

___________________________
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Volume II, Pages 256 - 436
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Reported By:
Job 412497

WENDY E. ARLEN, CSR #4355, CRR, RMR

Merrill Legal Solutions
[phone]

RICHARD CUMMINS
September 23, 2008
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 269

10:03

10:03

10:04

10:04

10:04

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Q.
Do you know when that occurred?
A.
Beth kept them over the course of time. So
she would be the best one to answer when. I can
assume, but I don't know for sure.
Q.
And was it a manual process to take the data
from those e-mails and put that into the Access
database?
A.
Yeah, that's what we discussed last week,
too, that it comes in through an e-mail and that's
how it gets into the database.
Q.
So would you agree with me the best record of
what the sales rep was saying was the e-mail itself
because something could be lost in translation?
MS. HOUSE: Objection, calls for speculation,
overbroad.
THE WITNESS: The information came in, Beth
told me that she cut and pasted it directly from the
e-mail into the database.
Q.
MR. McDONELL: Okay. What else did you talk
to Beth Shippy about?
A.
We talked about the limitation of what she
was given, the information came from customers as
best we could get it. Customers were not, you know,
customers give you what they want -- want you to
have. So there's certainly limitations with that.

Page 271

10:06

10:06

10:06

10:06

10:06

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

A.
We did. The next bullet point here was that
we confirmed the negotiated amount should be ATR for
all geographies, which we mentioned earlier in this
conversation. There was a question last -Q.
Let me stop there.
A.
Sure.
Q.
I must have misunderstood you. I thought you
said ATR was available to renew.
A.
Yes.
Q.
And that was not the negotiated amount.
A.
It's not.
Q.
Okay. So this says: "Negotiated amount
should be ATR for all geographies." What does that
mean?
A.
On that exhibit -MS. HOUSE: 55.
THE WITNESS: At the top of the first page.
Q.
MR. McDONELL: Let's take a look at the
Exhibit 55. You're referring to the page in the
lower right-hand that says -A.
Worldwide 1.
Q.
And let me remind you that we can't talk over
each other. Okay? Page Worldwide 1.
A.
At the top of that page it says Americas and
then it has ATR. If you look at geographies, it says

Page 270

10:04

10:05

10:05

10:05

10:05

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Sales reps reported this as part of their
overall job. It wasn't that there was a task force
or anything that -- that solely did that. So as a
sales rep I would have, you know, typically a sales
rep has several hundred renewals over the course of
the year. So this is part of what they did in the
course of their normal job. So information was only
as good as what they gave her.
Q.
Are you trying to tell us that they didn't
necessarily always give the information?
A.
No, I'm not saying that. I said they gave
the information, but, you know, this isn't -- they
didn't spend every day going back to this subset of
customers or anything as part of their -- part of
their daily job.
Q.
Okay. Then what's the next point under the
limitations you discussed with Beth?
A.
I was -- I was primarily responsible for
North America, and I'm not certain that the
information we got from non-U.S. based sales reps
captured everything that was out there. So we asked
for information, but, you know, it's only as good as
what we got back.
Q.
But you did ask for information from sales
reps globally, true?

Page 272

10:07

10:07

10:07

10:07

10:08

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

negotiated amount.
Q.
Yes.
A.
That should be ATR for all of those.
Q.
I see. So those are not negotiated amounts.
Those are actually the available to renew amounts.
A.
That's correct.
Q.
That's a typo where it says negotiated amount
in those three columns?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Thank you. Then referring back to
Exhibit 56, what's the next bullet point mean, the
one that reads: "Timing of at risk going to OKS was
actually February 2008. Date on document was
incorrect."
A.
When we discussed that document -- and do I
need to indicate what that exhibit is? Exhibit 30.
Q.
Yes.
A.
When I looked at this document, the timing on
it didn't make sense to me. As we discussed -- as I
discussed with Beth, Beth indicated that this
actually moved to OKS in February 2008 and not 2007
as the document reads here. So that's -- that's why
it didn't make sense to me last week.
Q.
So it actually was 2008.
A.
Yes. The process began much earlier, but it

5 (Pages 269 to 272)
Merrill Legal Solutions
[phone]