Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 335

Proposed Order re 334 Memorandum in Opposition, Proposed Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel by SAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Fuchs, Joshua) (Filed on 7/14/2009)

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 335

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document335

Filed07/14/09 Page1 of 2

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 26 27 28

Robert A. Mittelstaedt (SBN 060359) Jason McDonell (SBN 115084) Elaine Wallace (SBN 197882) JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Tharan Gregory Lanier (SBN 138784) Jane L. Froyd (SBN 220776) JONES DAY 1755 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Scott W. Cowan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Joshua L. Fuchs (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) JONES DAY 717 Texas, Suite 3300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants SAP AG, SAP AMERICA, INC., and TOMORROWNOW, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ORACLE USA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAP AG, et al., Defendants. Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL) [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY MATTER

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Dockets.Justia.com

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document335

Filed07/14/09 Page2 of 2

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 26 27 28

Oracle filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents Related to Damages Model and Interrogatory Responses Related to Use of Plaintiffs' Intellectual Property. The relief sought in Oracle's Motion is as follows: 1. An Order compelling Defendants to produce certain documents responsive to

Requests for Production 21-23 and 27 from Oracle's Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents and subpart (l) of Oracle's First Targeted Search Request; and 2. An Order compelling Defendant TomorrowNow, Inc. to provide supplemental

responses to Interrogatory 13 from Oracle Corporation's First Set of Interrogatories and Interrogatory 14 from Oracle USA, Inc.'s Second Set of Interrogatories.

The Court, having considered all of the pleadings and supporting papers submitted by the parties, and having heard the arguments of counsel, ORDERS as follows: 1. 2. Number 1 above is MOOT by agreement of the parties, and is therefore DENIED. Number 2 above is DENIED, as Defendant TomorrowNow, Inc. has complied

with its obligations under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 26.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _____________________ ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge

-1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)