Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 449

Proposed Order re 329 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents Related to Damages Model and Interrogatory Responses Related to Use of Plaintiffs' Intellectual Property JOINTLY FILED PROPOSED ORDER WITH PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES by Oracle EMEA Limited, Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc., Siebel Systems, Inc.. (Russell, Chad) (Filed on 8/27/2009)

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 449

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document449

Filed08/27/09 Page1 of 4

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 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO DAMAGES MODEL AND INTERROGATORY RESPONSES RELATED TO USE OF PLAINTIFFS' INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

SAP AG, et al., Defendants.

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL
Dockets.Justia.com

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document449

Filed08/27/09 Page2 of 4

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

After considering the pleadings and memoranda submitted by the Parties and supporting papers, and having heard the arguments of counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents Related to Damages Model and Interrogatory Responses Related to Use of Plaintiffs' Intellectual Property in the above-named action is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. Within 21 days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall provide a

supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 13 from Oracle Corporation's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant TomorrowNow, Inc. ("Interrogatory 13"). The supplemental response shall include a detailed explanation (e.g., including a download's product line, file identifier, customer credential used, or any other similar information), to the extent Defendants' records and memories allow, of the process Defendants employed and factual conclusions Defendants made that resulted in Defendants' answer to paragraph 15 of Oracle's First Amended Complaint, D.I. 36 ("FAC Answer") on July 2, 2007 and Defendants' representatives' statements in press releases/news conferences on July 2-3, 2007 that "inappropriate downloads" took place. Subject to the limits of Defendants' records and memories, the supplemental response shall be provided in a manner and contain information consistent with the direction the Court provided to Defendants' counsel during the hearing, including the bases on which Defendants concluded that "on some occasions, materials have been downloaded beyond those that, according to TN's records, related to applications licensed to the particular customer on whose behalf the downloads were made" and any other factual conclusions resulting from Defendants' analyses of any and all downloads relating to Defendants' answer to paragraph 15 of the FAC or Defendants' representatives' statements in press releases/news conferences on July 2-3, 2007 that "inappropriate downloads" took place. To the extent possible, the supplemental response shall refer by Bates number and/or specific native data location to any customer contracts, download verification forms, and/or other non-privileged documents relied upon in forming Defendants' factual conclusions and analyses described above. Defendants' supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 13 shall not be construed as a waiver of either the attorney-client privilege or work product immunity. 1
Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document449

Filed08/27/09 Page3 of 4

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

2.

Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall provide a

supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 14 from Oracle USA, Inc.'s Second Set of Interrogatories to Defendant TomorrowNow, Inc. ("Interrogatory 14"), as to fixes associated with the following Master Fix IDs selected by Oracle: for PeopleSoft, CSS-TN-0112069292, TN-AP06OCT, CSS-TN-0103076718, 2005B-751C, and CSS-TN-0114089315, and for JD Edwards, 1101064011, 1010067551, 1012062843, 1122054572, and 1015079561. Interrogatory 14 asks Defendants to "Identify all Customers who received support based on the Use of [TomorrowNow's local] environment[s], and [to provide] a detailed description of that support." To the extent possible, for each of the Master Fix IDs listed above, Defendants shall list each customer that received support in the form of a fix, bundle, or other deliverable that flowed from that Master Fix ID. To the extent possible, for each Master Fix ID listed above, Defendants shall (1) identify every environment used during, or associated with, each point in the fix-delivery process (including, for PeopleSoft HRMS Master Fix IDs, replication, development, unit testing, individual fix testing, bundling, and bundle testing, as applicable, and for other PeopleSoft Master Fix IDs and JDE Master Fix IDs, any equivalent, analagous, or different points), (2) state how each identified environment was used, and (3) identify the source of the information regarding each environment used. Where Defendants lack information regarding which environments, if any, were used in the fix delivery process for a particular Master Fix, Defendants shall state that they have no information at this time and that they have made a reasonable search for such information. Defendants' supplemental response shall refer by Bates number and/or specific native data location to each non-privileged document relied upon in supplementing their response, and if Defendants rely on any non-privileged documents or data not previously produced by any party in this case, then such documents or data must be produced with the response. Defendants will provide a separate supplemental response to Interrogatory 14, denoted as a response to Interrogatory 14(a), which describes the process, amount of time used, and expense incurred in preparing the supplemental response and identifies the consultants and former employees who assisted in creating the response to Interrogatory 14. Defendants' 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document449

Filed08/27/09 Page4 of 4

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

supplemental response to Interrogatory 14 and response to Interrogatory 14(a) shall not be construed as a waiver of either the attorney-client privilege or work product immunity. 3. The portions of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel relating to licenses, valuations, sales

close rates, and support renewal rates have been mooted by agreement of the Parties.

As to all issues for which relief is not specifically granted by paragraphs 1 and 2 above or mooted by paragraph 3 above, the Court DENIES the relief requested in Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________, 2009 Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte United States Magistrate Judge

3
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL