Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 374

Memorandum in Opposition re 365 MOTION for Sanctions Redacted Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 37(c) and 16(f) - Correction of Docket # 342 MOTION for Sanctions Redacted Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 37(c) and 16(f) - Correction of Docket # 342 [Redacted] filed byOracle EMEA Limited, Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hann, Bree) (Filed on 7/28/2009)

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

Bingham McCutchen LLP DONN P. PICKETT (SBN 72257) GEOFFREY M. HOWARD (SBN 157468) HOLLY A. HOUSE (SBN 136045) ZACHARY J. ALINDER (SBN 209009) BREE HANN (SBN 215695) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415.393.2286 [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) JENNIFER GLOSS (SBN 154227) 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 650.506.7114 [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, and Oracle EMEA Limited UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ORACLE USA, INC.,et al., v. Plaintiffs,

No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL FINANCIAL INFORMATION Date: Time: Place: Judge: August 18, 2009 2:00 pm Courtroom E, 15th Floor Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte

SAP AG, et al., Defendants.

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL FINANCIAL INFORMATION

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

This Motion to Compel Financial Information filed by Defendants SAP AG, SAP America, Inc. and TomorrowNow, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") came on regularly for hearing before this Court. All parties received notice and an opportunity to be heard. After considering the pleadings and memoranda submitted by the parties, and all supporting papers, and having heard the arguments of counsel, the Court issues the following Order: 1. The Court finds that three of the requests in Defendants' Motion to

Compel ­ product profitability reports, plaintiff-specific profit and loss statements, and a response to Defendants' Targeted Search Request No. 3 ­ are moot and DENIES Defendants' motion on that ground. 2. Defendants' motion to compel production of Oracle's entire General

Ledger data is DENIED as unduly burdensome and overbroad pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(C)(iii) and for failure to meet and confer in accordance with N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 37-1(a) and this Court's Standing Order. 3. Defendants' motion to compel further testimony in response to

Defendants' Amended Second Notice of Deposition of Plaintiff Oracle International Corporation Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) ("Amended Second Notice") is DENIED. The Court further orders that, absent agreement of the parties or an Order of the Court, Defendants may not examine any witness testifying as a 30(b)(6) designee regarding the topics and subtopics of either the First Notice of Deposition of Plaintiff Oracle International Corporation Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) or the Amended Second Notice. Plaintiffs may instruct their 30(b)(6) designees not to answer pursuant to this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ________________, 2009

Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte United States Magistrate Judge

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL FINANCIAL INFORMATION