Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 354

Declaration of Chad Russell in Support of 348 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 350 . filed byOracle EMEA Limited, Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit T)(Related document(s) 348 ) (Russell, Chad) (Filed on 7/17/2009)

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 354 Att. 18

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document354-19

Filed07/17/09 Page1 of 3

Exhibit S

Dockets.Justia.com

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document354-19

Filed07/17/09 Page2 of 3

Hearing, Discovery before Judge Laporte 2/13/2009 12:00:00 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE ORACLE CORPORATION, a Delaware ) Case No. C07-1658 Corporation; ORACLE, USA, INC.,) PJH (EDL) a Colorado corporation; and ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a California corporation, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) FURTHER DISCOVERY ) CONFERENCE ) SAP AG, a German corporation; ) SAP AMERICA, INC., a Delaware ) corporation; TOMORROWNOW, INC.,) a Texas corporation; and DOES ) 1-50, Inclusive, ) ) ) ) ) )

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Defendants. ) ______________________________) February 13, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO RECORDING

TRANSCRIBED BY: FREDDIE REPPOND
Unsigned Page 1

Oracle_SAP

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document354-19

Filed07/17/09 Page3 of 3

Hearing, Discovery before Judge Laporte 2/13/2009 12:00:00 PM
15 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 insisting that we say every single object or every single fix be done, but what we are asking is for a stipulation that reflects reality and is independent of damages. And we think that that is fair. And if we think that we can get it, then we're not as far apart as we may otherwise be on the needs of the calendar. THE COURT: All right. And -MR. COWAN: Couple things. One, on the obviously his characterization of my clients' conduct, pre- or post-litigation, I don't agree with. But I think for purposes of this discussion, we can deal with the other points he made. I agree that the SAS database provides some enriched source of information. We have under the extended discovery timeline agreement now completed our privilege review of that. I believe it's being produced today. I believe our office has already sent Mr. Howard an e-mail indicating whether he wants delivery tomorrow or not. It required an incredible amount of review to get that ready, but it is ready. So as of tomorrow or Tuesday, whenever they elect delivery, they should have the SAS database through October 31, 2008. And that database has all the data points in it -- or most of the data points in it -that Mr. Howard is referring to.

16 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 You notice on the stipulation that was filed as Exhibit A to the discovery conference statement there are a number of appendices. Those appendices were created using that SAS database. So that database has a rich source of information for them. Regardless of whether we have a stipulation, that database is available to them to meet their burden of proof to come forward and establish whatever they think they can establish with that information. With respect to the need for testimony to come out of the witnesses' mouths rather than the lawyers' characterization of that, I would hope that Mr. Howard can appreciate and certainly hope the Court could appreciate what the lawyers say happened is not something particularly that has liability implications and potentially significant damages implications. It's not something that the business folks want to rely a hundred percent on. They want to know what the witnesses have to say about this, particularly since we're dealing with a subsidiary company. The decision-making on these kinds of things are certainly being made at the highest level of the parent company; and we have to have that evidence. THE COURT: Well, you -- I mean, of course, unlike the Plaintiffs, you can interview the witnesses

Oracle_SAP

Unsigned

Page 15 - 16