Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 377

MOTION to Seal Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Supporting Plaintiffs' Oppositions to Defendants' Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Compel; Declaration of Jennifer Gloss in Support filed by Oracle EMEA Limited, Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hann, Bree) (Filed on 7/28/2009)

Download PDF
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: 415.393.2000 Facsimile: 415.393.2286 donn.pickett@bingham.com geoff.howard@bingham.com holly.house@bingham.com zachary.alinder@bingham.com bree.hann@bingham.com DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) JENNIFER GLOSS (SBN 154227) 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 Telephone: 650.506.4846 Facsimile: 650.506.7114 dorian.daley@oracle.com jennifer.gloss@oracle.com 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

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?