Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 566

MOTION to Compel Redacted Defendants' Motion to Compel filed by SAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. Motion Hearing set for 1/26/2010 02:00 PM in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McDonell, Jason) (Filed on 12/11/2009)

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 566

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page1 of 23

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 ( S B N 060359) J a s o n McDonell ( S B N 115084) Elaine Wallace ( S B N 197882) JONES DAY th 555 California Street, 26 F l o o r S a n Francisco, C A 9 4 1 0 4 Telephone: (415) 6 2 6 - 3 9 3 9 Facsimile: (415) 8 7 5 - 5 7 0 0 [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] T h a r a n G r e g o r y L a n i e r ( S B N 138784) Jane L. Froyd (SBN 220776) JONES D A Y 1755 Embarcadero Road P a l o Alto, C A 94303 Telephone: (650) 7 3 9 - 3 9 3 9 Facsimile: (650) 7 3 9 - 3 9 0 0 [e-mail] [e-mail] Scott W. C o w a n (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Joshua L. Fuchs (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) JONES D A Y 717 T e x a s , S u i t e 3 3 0 0 Houston, T X 77002 Telephone: (832) 2 3 9 - 3 9 3 9 Facsimile: (832) 2 3 9 - 3 6 0 0 [e-mail] j I f u c h s @ j o n e s d a y .com Attorneys for D e f e n d a n t s SAP AG, SAP A M E R l C A , INC., and T O M O R R O W N O W , INC. U N I T E D STATES D I S T R l C T C O U R T N O R T H E R N D I S T R I C T OF C A L I F O R N I A OAKLAND DIVISION O R A C L E U S A , I N C . , e t af., Plaintiffs,
v.

C a s e No. 0 7 - C V - 1 6 5 8 P J H ( E D L ) D E F E N D A N T S ' MOTION T O COMPEL Date: J a n u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 0 Time: 2 : 0 0 pm Courtroom: E, 15th Floor Judge: Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte

S A P AG, e t a f . , Defendants.

REDACTED

DEFS.' M O T I O N T O COMPEL C a s e No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Dockets.Justia.com

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page2 of 23

TABLE O F C O N T E N T S
2
3

Page
I.
INTRODUCTION ARGUMENT A. Oracle should be compelled to produce download-to- product mapping information 1. 1 2 2

4
5
6

II.

T h e d o w n l o a d - t o - p r o d u c t m a p p i n g i s s u e is a c r i t i c a l i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e ...... 4 D e f e n d a n t s first s o u g h t p r o d u c t i o n o f a l l c r i t i c a l e l e c t r o n i c d o w n l o a d - t o product mapping information in Plaintiffs' possession in July 2007 4 Plaintiffs h a v e c o n s i s t e n t l y r e p r e s e n t a t e d t h a t m a p p i n g the d o w n l o a d s t o 6 the p r o d u c t s has t o b e d o n e m a n u a l l y , o n a file-by-file b a s i s Electronic download-to-product mapping information has been in Plaintiffs' possession since at least M a r c h 2 0 0 7 J a s o n R i c e ' s t e s t i m o n y d i s p r o v e s P l a i n t i f f s ' p r i o r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s to Defendants, Judge Legge a n d this Court 8 10

7
2.

8
9 10

3.
4.

11 12 13 6. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 C. 7.

5.

T h r o u g h o u t t h i s c a s e , D e f e n d a n t s h a v e c o n t i n u o u s l y s o u g h t all e l e c t r o n i c 12 download-to-product mapping in Plaintiffs' possession P l a i n t i f f s s h o u l d b e c o m p e l l e d to p r o d u c e all d o w n 1 0 a d - t o - p r o d u c t m a p p i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e i r p o s s e s s i o n a n d to p r o v i d e f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e c r e a t i o n a n d a c c e s s t o t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y h a v e p r o d u c e d 13 14 14 15

B.

o r a c l e s h o u l d b e c o m p e l l e d to p r o d u c e t h e F O L G E R d o c u m e n t s 1. 2. Factual B a c k g r o u n d T h e r e Is N o U n d u e B u r d e n O n O r a c l e

o r a c l e s h o u l d b e c o m p e l l e d to u p d a t e t h e p r o d u c t i o n s o f six k e y c u s t o d i a n s ....... 17 1. Factual B a c k g r o u n d D e f e n d a n t s ' R e q u e s t Is C o n s i s t e n t W i t h T h e P a r t i e s ' A g r e e m e n t 17 19

22
23 24 25

2.
3.

D e f e n d a n t s D i d N o t A b a n d o n T h e R e q u e s t F o r U p d a t e d P r o d u c t i o n s ...... 2 0 21

III.

CONCLUSION

26
27
28
SFI-625231vl
- 11 -

DEFS.' MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 07-CY-1658 P l H (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page3 of 23

NOTICE O F M O T I O N 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 P L E A S E T A K E N O T I C E that at 2:00 pm on January 26, 2010, in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, Defendants SAP AG, SAP America, Inc., and TomorrowNow, Inc. ( " D e f e n d a n t s " ) will move the Court, pursuant to Rule 37 o f the Federal Rules o f Civil Procedure, for an order compelling Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, Oracle EMEA Limited, and Siebel Systems, Inc. ("Oracle" or "Plaintiffs") to comply with the discovery requests described herein. The motion is based on the Notice o f Motion, Motion, and Memorandum o f Points and Authorities incorporated herein, and on the accompanying Declarations o f Scott W. Cowan and Jason McDonell and in Support o f Defendants' Motion to Compel (respectively, "Cowan Decl." a n d " M c D o n e l l Decl."). RELIEF REQUESTED Defendants seek an order compelling Oracle to: ( l ) produce discovery relating to Defendants' requests concerning the mapping o f O r a c l e ' s products to infonnation allegedly downloaded by TomorrowNow, including responses to Requests for Production Nos. 44, 45, 47, and 51 as well Interrogatory N o . 7 , and the history o f Plaintiffs' creation of, access to, and ability to access and produce the infonnation sought by these requests; (2) comply with a third party subpoena to O r a c l e ' s counsel Folger Levin & Kahn LLP by producing a small number o f deposition transcripts and sixty-four identified documents from the PeopleSoft v. Oracle state court litigation; and (3) update the productions o f six key custodians pursuant to the parties' Expanded Discovery Timeline Agreement. M E M O R A N D U M O F P O I N T S AND A U T H O R I T I E S

I.

INTRODUCTION

At the November 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 Discovery Conference, the Court expressed a desire to limit the number o f issues to be presented in the parties' motions to compel to be filed at the end o f fact discovery. Accordingly, the Court granted leave for each side to file motions to compel on three topics, two o f which were identified at the conference, with the third to be identified later. During the conference, Defendants identified open discovery issues relating to the Fourth
SFI-625231 v i

-I-

DEFS.' MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 07-CY-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page4 of 23

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

Amended Complaint ("FAC"), Plaintiffs' expanded claims, including the Siebel product line, and to pre-2005 legacy data. Also at the conference, the parties discussed the issue o f Defendants' subpoena to Folger Levin & Kahn LLP ("Folger") concerning the P e o p l e S o f t v. Oracle state court litigation and the Court provided guidance that Defendants interpreted as obviating the necessity for a motion to compel on that issue. Certain developments since the time o f t h e November 17 conference have affected the motions Defendants now present to the Court: (1) A December 4 , 2 0 0 9 deposition o f an Oracle employee revealed that Oracle has misrepresented its ability to produce the electronic download-to-product mapping information Defendants have sought since July 2007, and this issue is the subject o f Defendants' first request for relief in this motion (which, for reference purposes, is Defendants' use o f the open "third issue" permitted by paragraph 7 o f this Court's November 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 Order); (2) The pre-2005 legacy data issue has been resolved and does not need to b e presented to the Court. However, the Folger subpoena issue that Defendants believed was resolved by the Court at the November 17 conference is, according to Oracle, not resolved and Oracle has refused to produce any documents on that issue beyond an index o f pleadings. Accordingly, Defendants hereby seek the C o u r t ' s permission to substitute the Folger supboeana issue for the previously identified pre-2005 legacy data issue (which, for reference purposes, was Defendants' "second issue" permitted by paragraph 7 o f this C o u r t ' s November 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 Order); and (3) Defendants have narrowed the request for relief on several discovery issues relating to the FAC, Plaintiffs' expanded claims, and Siebel issues to a single issue, i.e. Defendants' request for updated productions for six key custodians under the parties' Expanded Discovery Timeframe Agreement (which, for reference purposes, is Defendants' "first issue" permitted b y paragraph 7 o f this Court's November 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 Order).
II.

ARGUMENT

A.

O R A C L E S H O U L D BE C O M P E L L E D T O P R O D U C E D O W N L O A D - T O PRODUCT MAPPING INFORMATION. On the very last day o f fact discovery in this case, Friday, December 4 , 2 0 0 9 , Defendants

28

S F I - 6 2 5 2 3 I vI

-2-

DEFS.' MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 07-CY-1658 P l H (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page5 of 23

l e a r n e d f o r t h e first t i m e t h a t P l a i n t i f f s c o u l d h a v e , i n l e s s t h a n a d a y ' s t i m e a n d a s e a r l y a s M a r c h

2
3
4

2 0 0 7 , p r o d u c e d a s p r e a d s h e e t c o n t a i n i n g s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n s o f the d o w n l o a d - t o - p r o d u c t m a p p i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t D e f e n d a n t s h a v e c o n t i n u a l l y s o u g h t from P l a i n t i f f s s i n c e J u l y 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 . 1 H o w e v e r , P l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d to p r o d u c e t h a t s p r e a d s h e e t to D e f e n d a n t s u n t i l N o v e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 , o v e r t w o a n d h a l f y e a r s a f t e r t h e y f i l e d s u i t o n M a r c h 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 . P l a i n t i f f s ' l e n g t h y d e l a y in p r o d u c i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h a t s p r e a d s h e e t is u n j u s t i f i e d a n d raises s e r i o u s c o n c e r n s r e g a r d i n g the c o m p l e t e n e s s o f P l a i n t i f f s ' d i s c o v e r y r e s p o n s e s r e l a t e d to the d o w n l o a d - t o - p r o d u c t m a p p i n g i s s u e t h a t h a s b e e n a c e n t r a l i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e s i n c e i t w a s f i r s t filed. T o a d d r e s s t h o s e c o n c e r n s , a n d to m a k e sure D e f e n d a n t s have all the r e l e v a n t d o c u m e n t s a n d i n f o r m a t i o n b e f o r e D e f e n d a n t s take f u r t h e r a c t i o n o r s e e k f u r t h e r r e l i e f r e l a t i n g to P l a i n t i f f s ' d e l a y e d p r o d u c t i o n o f t h i s c r i t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n , this p o r t i o n o f D e f e n d a n t s ' t h r e e p a r t m o t i o n r e s p e c t f u l l y r e q u e s t s t h e C o u r t t o i s s u e a n o r d e r that: 1. C o m p e l s P l a i n t i f f s to fully r e s p o n d to T o m o r r o w N o w ' s F i r s t S e t o f R e q u e s t s for P r o d u c t i o n Nos. 4 4 , 4 5 , 4 7 , a n d 51 ( " R F P Nos. 44, 4 5 , 47, a n d 5 1 " ) a n d F i r s t S e t o f I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , N o . 7 ( " l n t . No. 7 ' ) , b o t h o f w h i c h w e r e o r i g i n a l l y s e r v e d o n P l a i n t i f f s o n J u l y 2 6 , 2007;2 2. R e q u i r e s P l a i n t i f f s to c e r t i f y t h a t all d o c u m e n t s a n d i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e i r p o s s e s s i o n , c u s t o d y , o r c o n t r o l r e s p o n s i v e to R F P N o s . 4 4 , 45, 47, a n d 51 a n d lnt. N o . 7 h a s b e e n p r o v i d e d to D e f e n d a n t s ; 3. R e q u i r e s P l a i n t i f f s t o identify, w i t h particularity, b y B a t e s n u m b e r o r o t h e r s u c h specific identifier, w h i c h d o c u m e n t s Plaintiffs c o n t e n d t h e y h a v e p r o d u c e d t h a t ar e r e s p o n s i v e o r o t h e r w i s e r e l a t e d to R F P Nos. 4 4 , 4 5 , 4 7 a n d 51 a n d l n t . No.7; and 4. R e q u i r e s P l a i n t i f f s , for e a c h s u c h d o c u m e n t P l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h e y h a v e p r o d u c e d a n d t h a t ar e r e s p o n s i v e o r o t h e r w i s e r e l a t e d to RFP Nos. 4 4 , 45, 4 7 a n d 51 a n d lnt. N o . 7 , to i d e n t i f y w h o c r e a t e d t h e d o c u m e n t , w h e n P l a i n t i f f a c q u i r e d p o s s e s s i o n , c u s t o d y o r c o n t r o l o v e r the d o c u m e n t a n d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d therein, and w h e n it w a s p r o d u c e d to Defendants.

5
6

7
8
9

10 11 12
13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22
23 24 25 26 27

1

C o w a n Decl. ~ 7, Exh. A ( 1 2 / 0 4 / 0 9 R i c e Tr.), at 6 0 : 1 0 - 2 5 ; 6 7 : 2 5 - 6 9 : 1 4 .

28

2 F o r t h e C o u r t ' s c o n v e n i e n c e , a s i n g l e s p a c e d v e r s i o n o f the r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s o f R F P Nos. 4 4 , 45, 4 7 a n d 51 a n d lnt. N o . 7 a n d P l a i n t i f f s ' r e s p o n s e s a n d o b j e c t i o n s t h e r e t o a r e c o n t a i n e d in five s e p a r a t e a p p e n d i c e s , l a b e l e d A p p e n d i c e s 1 t h r o u g h 5, r e s p e c t i v e l y , to the C o w a n D e c l a r a t i o n filed w i t h t h i s m o t i o n . F o r p u r p o s e s o f e n s u r i n g a c o m p l e t e r e c o r d , c o m p l e t e c o p i e s o f the r e q u e s t s a n d o f t h e r e s p o n s e s and o b j e c t i o n s are a t t a c h e d a s E x h i b i t s B a n d C, r e s p e c t i v e l y , to t h e s a m e d e c l a r a t i o n .
SFI-625231vl

-3-

DEFS.' MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 0 7 - C Y - I 6 5 8 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page6 of 23

1.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

T h e d o w n l o a d - t o - p r o d u c t m a p p i n g issue is a c r i t i c a l issue in this case.

T h e d o w n l o a d - t o - p r o d u c t m a p p i n g issue is a critical i s s u e in this c a s e b e c a u s e it relates t o w h a t is the core o f O r a c l e ' s o r i g i n a l a l l e g a t i o n s i n this c a s e - t h a t T o m o r r o w N o w a l l e g e d l y d o w n l o a d e d m a s s i v e a m o u n t s o f m a t e r i a l s from O r a c l e ' s c u s t o m e r s u p p o r t w e b s i t e t h a t T o m o r r o w N o w ' s c u s t o m e r s w e r e n o t e n t i t l e d to receive. O r a c l e has c o n c e d e d t h a t s o m e o f t h e m a t e r i a l s t h a t T o m o r r o w N o w d o w n l o a d e d o n b e h a l f o f its c u s t o m e r s w e r e p r o p e r l y d o w n l o a d e d . T h u s , a critical q u e s t i o n in this c a s e is w h i c h d o w n l o a d e d m a t e r i a l s w e r e l i c e n s e d b y the c u s t o m e r s o n w h o s e b e h a l f T o m o r r o w N o w d o w n l o a d e d t h e m a n d w h i c h w e r e not. O r a c l e h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y m a i n t a i n e d t h r o u g h o u t this c a s e that a n y d o w n l o a d - t o - p r o d u c t m a p p i n g t h a t c a n be d o n e has t o b e d o n e m a n u a l l y , o n a f i l e - b y - f i l e basis. A n d , O r a c l e has c o n s i s t e n t l y m a i n t a i n e d t h a t there is no e a s i l y o b t a i n a b l e , c o m b i n e d s e t o f d a t a t h a t w o u l d , a f t e r the d o w n l o a d i n g has o c c u r r e d , a l l o w an e l e c t r o n i c , a u t o m a t e d c o m p a r i s o n o f d o w n l o a d e d i t e m s to t h e p r o d u c t s t o w h i c h relate. T h e D e c e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 9 t e s t i m o n y o f O r a c l e ' s e m p l o y e e , J a s o n R i c e , p r o v e s o t h e r w i s e a n d e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t P l a i n t i f f s h a v e w i t h h e l d c r i t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m D e f e n d a n t s for m o r e t h a n t w o years. N o w t h a t f a c t d i s c o v e r y is c l o s e d a n d D e f e n d a n t s c a n no l o n g e r t a k e d e p o s i t i o n s o f O r a c l e ' s fact w i t n e s s e s o r tailor further w r i t t e n d i s c o v e r y b a s e d o n the e l e c t r o n i c d o w n l o a d - t o - p r o d u c t m a p p i n g d a t a O r a c l e j u s t p r o d u c e d o n N o v e m b e r 16,2009, D e f e n d a n t s are s e r i o u s l y p r e j u d i c e d b y P l a i n t i f f s ' w i t h h o l d i n g o f this critical information.

13 14
15

16 17 18 19 20
21

2.

D e f e n d a n t s f i r s t s o u g h t p r o d u c t i o n o f all c r i t i c a l electronic downloadt o - p r o d u c t m a p p i n g i n f o r m a t i o n in P l a i n t i f f s ' possession in J u l y 2007.

In t h e very first d i s c o v e r y hearing in this c a s e b e f o r e S p e c i a l M a s t e r C h a r l e s A. L e g g e o n F e b r u a r y 13,2008, D e f e n d a n t s ' c o u n s e l framed t h e d o w n l o a d - t o - p r o d u c t m a p p i n g i s s u e f o r J u d g e L e g g e a s follows: Really, this i s s u e is w h a t data d o t h e y h a v e i n t h e i r p o s s e s s i o n t h a t will s p e e d the a n a l y s i s o f the T o m o r r o w N o w d o w n l o a d e d files, to a l l o w us to s e g r e g a t e t h o s e t h i n g s t h a t o u r c u s t o m e r s a r e r i g h t f u l l y e n t i t l e d to u n d e r t h e licenses, a n d t h o s e t h i n g s t h a t w e b o t h a g r e e t h e y s h o u l d n ' t h a v e u n d e r t h e i r licenses. B u t the idea - the e n d g a m e , i f y o u w i l l - is to g e t o f f o f o u r s y s t e m s t h o s e t h i n g s w e b o t h a g r e e s h o u l d n ' t b e t h e r e - a n d t o d o t h a t in t h e m o s t e f f i c i e n t , p r a c t i c a l way.
D E F S . ' M O T I O N TO C O M P E L Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH ( E D L )

22 23 24
25

26
27

28
SFI·62523I v I

-4-

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page7 of 23

Cowan Dec\. ~10, Exh. 0 (02/13/08 Hearing Tr.), at 22:25-23:9. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 One category o f downloads at issue in this case, related to the J.D. Edwards product line and specifically referenced in the complaint, are what is known as " E S U s . " " E S U s " is an acronym used to describe Electronic Software Updates, which are a type o f downloadable artifact that Plaintiffs maintained on their Customer Connection support website and that TomorrowNow downloaded on b e h a l f o f its customers during times relevant to this lawsuit. ESUs are executable files that, when properly applied to certain J.D. Edwards software, are generally designed to make some change o r improvement to that software to address a specific issue or set o f issues with the software. There are one o r more artifacts known as " S A R s " located inside o f each ESU. " S A R s " is an acronym used to describe Software Action Requests, which are created based on a J.D. Edwards' tracking system used to formally identify specific issues o r questions that arise related to the J.D. Edwards software. And, the J.D. Edwards software i t s e l f is comprised o f a variety o f "objects" that, depending on the issue identified through a SAR, may need to be created, modified o r replaced to resolve a particular issue. ESUs, SARs, and objects each have a corresponding "system code," which is a J.D. Edwards-assigned two to four digit code referring to a specific portion o f the J.D. Edwards software product. In other words, the corresponding system code for each ESU, SAR, and object provides information about which J.D. Edwards software products those downloadable artifacts relate. The scope o f t h e licenses for J.D. Edwards software products are in some instances articulated on the basis o f which "system codes" the licensee o f the products is licensed. Thus, the "system code" is a way o f tying a downloaded ESU, SAR, or object back to a specific J.D. Edwards software product. Therefore, i f one wanted to electronically " m a p " a given download o f an ESU, SAR, and/or object to a given product, then an electronic spreadsheet showing which system codes relate to each ESU, SAR, and object that is available for downloading would be very useful in that exercise. Given the substantial volume o f downloads at issue and the impracticalities o f doing a manual file-by-file analysis o f them, on July 26, 2007 Defendants served Plaintiffs with certain requests for production (RFP Nos. 44, 45, 47, and 51) and a related interrogatory (Int. N o . 7 )
SFI-625231 v i

-5-

D E F S . ' MOTION TO C O M P E L Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page8 of 23

seeking all d o c u m e n t s and related information in P l a i n t i f f s ' p o s s e s s i o n that would permit an

2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11
12

electronic d o w n l o a d - t o - p r o d u c t mapping for each d o w n l o a d then existing on T o m o r r o w N o w ' s systems. Plaintiffs initially r e s p o n d e d mostly w i t h o b j e c t i o n s a n d w i t h o u t p r o d u c i n g o r r e f e r e n c i n g a n y t h i n g o t h e r than T o m o r r o w N o w ' s c u s t o m e r s ' s o f t w a r e license a g r e e m e n t s w i t h Plaintiffs. T h e license a g r e e m e n t s r e f e r e n c e d b y Plaintiffs d o n o t c o n t a i n any s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n s h o w i n g w h i c h d o w n l o a d s r e l a t e to w h i c h p r o d u c t s ( i . e . , t h e s y s t e m c o d e s t h a t a r e l i n k e d to each d o w n l o a d a b l e artifact). So, in early 2008, as p a r t o f D e f e n d a n t s ' first m o t i o n to c o m p e l in this case, Defendants requested that J u d g e Legge o r d e r Plaintiffs to p r o d u c e all o f the d o w n l o a d - t o - p r o d u c t mapping information in P l a i n t i f f s ' possession.

3.

Plaintiffs have consistently representated that mappin2 the downloads to t h e p r o d u c t s h a s to b e d o n e m a n u a l l y , o n a file-by-file b a s i s .

In response to D e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n to compel all o f the d o w n l o a d - t o - p r o d u c t m a p p i n g information in P l a i n t i f f s ' possession, Plaintiffs told J u d g e L e g g e that, at least as o f February 13, 2 0 0 8 , P l a i n t i f f s h a d n o m a p p i n g s y s t e m t h a t w o u l d p e r m i t t h e p a r t i e s to m a p e a c h d o w n l o a d to each p r o d u c t for w h i c h a g i v e n c u s t o m e r w a s licensed. C o w a n Decl.
~

13
14

15
16 17

10, Exh. 0 , at 23: 10-33:5.

Plaintiffs t o l d J u d g e Legge t h a t the o n l y w a y to map a specific d o w n l o a d to a specific product w a s to manually open e a c h d o w n l o a d e d file and l o o k for the s y s t e m code information contained in that file. Id. In response, J u d g e Legge asked P l a i n t i f f s ' counsel: " D o you h a v e , p r e s e n t l y e x i s t i n g , a n y m a p p i n g d e v i c e o r p r o g r a m o r c o d e w h i c h w o u l d e l i m i n a t e t h e n e c e s s i t y for d o i n g it o n e by o n e ? " Id. a t 33:6-8 (emphasis added). P l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l a n s w e r e d that q u e s t i o n " N o , " a s follows: MR. H O W A R D : T h e a n s w e r to that, Your Honor, is: " n o t t h a t w e h a v e b e e n a b l e t o g e n e r a t e so f a r . " W e ' r e still w o r k i n g o n it, b e c a u s e we have the same interest in this t h a t t h e y do. I t w a s n ' t o u r p r e f e r e n c e to limit the c o m p l a i n t to E S U s w i t h a s i n g l e s y s t e m c o d e i n them, b e c a u s e w e r e c o g n i z e t h a t o t h e r E S U s w e r e i l l e g a l l y d o w n l o a d e d t h a t h a p p e n e d to h a v e m o r e t h a n o n e s y s t e m c o d e . Customers k n o w w h a t products they are licensed to; they k n o w w h a t s y s t e m codes a p p l y to t h e things they are looking for. J U D G E LEG G E: I w o u l d think so. MR. H O W A R D : So they are not g o i n g at it from the reverse direction w e are t a l k i n g a b o u t now.
DEFS.' MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

18
19 20
21

22
23

24
25

26 27
28

SFI-62523I v I

-6-

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page9 of 23

JUDGE LEGGE: We are starting with bulk, and trying to break it down.
2

3
4

MR. HOWARD: Right. So, i f we h a d i t , we w o u l d b e giving i t to t h e m . W e ' r e working on it, b u t we d o n ' t have something at this point that we can hand over, that will solve - that will do Mr. C o w a n ' s work for him. JUDGE LEGGE: You know that you are going to be hearing the same thing back again when we start talking about their database. MR. HOWARD: B u t the difference, Y o u r H o n o r , is here we h a v e given t h e m c o m p i l e d as m u c h a s we c a n c o m p i l e . J U D G E LEGGE: Y o u a r e t e l l i n g m e t h a t y o u d o n o t h a v e a p r e s e n t m a p p i n g system. MR. HOWARD: R i g h t .

5

6
7

8
9

10 11 12
13

JUDGE LEGGE: B u t i f you were to a n s w e r - I ' m putting words into your mouth; please tell me i f I am wrong - i f you were to give them what they want, you would have to go through each one o f the sub files one by one, to produce the code connection o r something. Is that right? MR. HOWARD: Yes, and indeed t h a t ' s w h a t we did to file the complaint.
Id. at 33:9-34:20 (emphasis added).

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

J u d g e L e g g e t h e n t o o k w h a t P l a i n t i f f s told h i m d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g a n d i s s u e d his r e p o r t a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s b a s e d o n t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n . And, w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e r e q u e s t e d m a p p i n g information, Judge Legge found in relevant part:
I f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n is n o w a v a i l a b l e on O r a c l e ' s s y s t e m , t h e a n s w e r s h o u l d logically c o m e f r o m O r a c l e ' s i n f o r m a t i o n b a s e r a t h e r t h a n f r o m d e f e n d a n t s . . . . Defendants w a n t more detail in the mapping information, primarily to relate the information directly to defendants' sub-files, and the connections between the sub-files, the products and the contract. Defendants represent that they would otherwise have to do that work themselves on a one-by-one basis on each sub file. On the other hand, Oracle represents that it does not presently have a system which would allow it to map the sub files; but rather Oracle would have to do the same one-by-one sub files as defendants would have to do.

Cowan Dec\.

~

11, Exh. E (02/22/08 Report and Recommendations Re: Discovery Hearing No. I )

(Dkt. 66), at 3-4 (emphasis added). After making those findings, Judge Legge ordered Plaintiffs, a t Plaintiffs' expense, to send an engineer to Defendants' premises to work with one o f Defendants' engineers to see i f a method o f access could be developed. Cowan Dec\.
~

11, Exh. E, at 3-4. Pending that exercise

and based on Plaintiffs' representations cited in Judge L e g g e ' s ruling, he denied without prejudice Defendants' motion to compel the product-to-download mapping information. Id.
SFI-625231 v I

-7-

D E F S . ' M O T I O N TO C O M P E L Case No. 07-CY-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page10 of 23

Instead o f h a v i n g a n immediate onsite meeting at T o m o r r o w N o w ' s data center, 2 3 4 5 6 7 Defendants c o n t i n u e d to p r o d u c e to P l a i n t i f f s ' copies o f all o f the d o w n l o a d e d materials c o n t a i n e d o n T o m o r r o w N o w ' s servers. T o m o r r o w N o w d i d that b y b o t h p r o v i d i n g P l a i n t i f f s a n d t h e i r e x p e r t s a c t u a l c o p i e s o f the c o n t e n t s o f c e r t a i n s e r v e r s a n d m a k i n g o t h e r s e r v e r s a v a i l a b l e through the D a t a W a r e h o u s e , which was constructed in the s u m m e r o f 2 0 0 8 and is still currently maintained at D e f e n d a n t s ' expense for P l a i n t i f f s ' access and use.

4.

E l e c t r o n i c d o w n l o a d - t o - p r o d u c t mappin!! i n f o r m a t i o n h a s been in P l a i n t i f f s ' possession since a t least M a r c h 2007.

8
9 10
II

It is now clear, however, t h a t Plaintiffs d i d not need to send an e n g i n e e r to D e f e n d a n t s ' p r e m i s e s to w o r k with o n e o f D e f e n d a n t s ' engineers to see i f a method o f access to some a u t o m a t e d m a p p i n g information could be developed. T h e fact is that, at least since they filed this lawsuit in M a r c h 2007, Plaintiffs have had the ability to access the relevant information in t h e i r o w n d a t a b a s e s a n d e a s i l y c r e a t e a s p r e a d s h e e t w i t h a large p o r t i o n o f the c r i t i c a l d o w n l o a d - t o p r o d u c t m a p p i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t D e f e n d a n t s have b e e n r e q u e s t i n g s i n c e J u l y 2007. T h u s , u s i n g t h e p e r t i n e n t l a n g u a g e from J u d g e L e g g e ' s F e b r u a r y 22, 2 0 0 8 r u l i n g : " [ T h e i n f o r m a t i o n w a s ] a v a i l a b l e o n O r a c l e ' s s y s t e m [as o f M a r c h 2 0 0 7 , a n d t h u s ] t h e a n s w e r s h o u l d [ h a v e ] l o g i c a l l y c o m e from O r a c l e ' s i n f o r m a t i o n b a s e r a t h e r t h a n from d e f e n d a n t s . " I n s t e a d , a n d w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t prejudice to Defendants, substantial and critical portions o f that mapping information were not produced by Plaintiffs until N o v e m b e r 16, 2009, j u s t a mere 19 days before the c l o s e o f the yearslong fact discovery in this case. P l a i n t i f f s ' o w n w i t n e s s , J a s o n Rice, a P r i n c i p a l S o f t w a r e E n g i n e e r e m p l o y e d b y O r a c l e Corporation,3 testified on the last d a y o f discovery in this case that he could h a v e in M a r c h 2007, and in less t h a n a d a y ' s time, p r o d u c e d s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n s o f the d o w n l o a d - t o - p r o d u c t m a p p i n g information D e f e n d a n t s have requested since J u l y 2007. C o w a n Decl. ~ 7, Exh. A, at 60: 10-25; 67:25-69: 14. M o r e specifically, using P l a i n t i f f s ' o w n databases, Jason Rice c r e a t e d a massive s p r e a d s h e e t c o n t a i n i n g , i n part, e x a c t l y w h a t D e f e n d a n t s h a v e b e e n s e e k i n g since J u l y 2007, which is an electronic spreadsheet s h o w i n g for each ESU: REDACTED 3 C o w a n Decl. ~ 7, Exh. A, at 5:22-6:3.
SFI-62523 1v I

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-8-

DEFS.· MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 07-CY-I658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page11 of 23

REDACTED
2
3
4

5 6 7 8 9
10

Id. R i c e ' s m a s s i v e s p r e a d s h e e t was not p r o d u c e d to D e f e n d a n t s until N o v e m b e r 16, 2 0 0 9 , w h e n P l a i n t i f f s p r o d u c e d t h e i r e x p e r t s ' r e p o r t s a n d c e r t a i n b a c k up m a t e r i a l s for t h o s e reports. 4 W h i l e r e f e r e n c i n g a n e x c e r p t from this m a s s i v e s p r e a d s h e e t t h a t w a s m a r k e d as D e f e n d a n t s ' E x h i b i t 9 3 2 a t his D e c e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 9 d e p o s i t i o n ( a n d s u b m i t t e d h e r e as E x h i b i t G to t h e C o w a n D e c l a r a t i o n ) , J a s o n R i c e t e s t i f i e d that:

11 12 13 14 15 16

17
18 19 20 21

22
23 24

25
26

27 28

4 A C D c o n t a i n i n g a n e l e c t r o n i c c o p y o f t h e m a s s i v e s p r e a d s h e e t c r e a t e d b y R i c e a n d first p r o d u c e d b y P l ai nt i f f s o n N o v e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 a n d l a b e l e d as o RCLX-MAN-OOOO16 is a t t a c h e d a s Exhibit F to the C o w a n D e c l a r a t i o n and, as a courtesy, s u b m i t t e d in camera w i t h this m o t i o n . T o the extent the C o u r t will p e r m i t , D e f e n d a n t s ' c o u n s e l w o u l d like to use this e l e c t r o n i c v e r s i o n o f the s p r e a d s h e e t with a c o m p u t e r p r o j e c t o r d i s p l a y d u r i n g the h e a r i n g on this motion. In a d d i t i o n , p a p e r c o p y e x c e r p t s from t h i s m a s s i v e s p r e a d s h e e t w e r e a t t a c h e d m a r k e d as E x h i b i t 9 3 2 at J a s o n R i c e ' s d e p o s i t i o n a n d a r e a t t a c h e d as E x h i b i t G to t h e C o w a n D e c l a r a t i o n .
SFI-62523IvI

-9-

DEFS.' MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 0 7 - C Y - I 6 5 8 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page12 of 23

2

3
4

5
6

7
8
9

C o w a n Decl.

~

7, Exh. A, at 67:25-69: 14.

10 11 12
13

And, when asked h o w long it t o o k to prepare the report, Jason Rice responded as follows:

14
15
16 17

18
19

Page 60 10 Q. H o w long did it take y o u to create the Tab 11 B7333 t h a t is in the file ESU SAR DA T A.xls? 12 MR. ALINDER: Objection. V a g u e a n d 13 ambiguous, assumes facts not in evidence. 14 T H E WITNESS: It -- I can't remember how 15 long it would take me. 16 MR. COWAN: Q. C a n you estimate? 17 MR. A L I N D E R : S a m e o b j e c t i o n s . 18 T H E WITNESS: I t -- it probably didn't take 19 that long, but -20 MR. COWAN: Q. Less than a day? 21 A. For this information? 22 Q. Yes. 23 MR. A L I N D E R : S a m e o b j e c t i o n s . 24 T H E W I T N E S S : I t c o u l d p o s s i b l y t a k e less 25 than a day, yes.
Jd. at 60:10-25.

20
21

22 23
24

5.

J a s o n R i c e ' s testimony disproves Plaintiffs' p r i o r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s to Defendants, J u d 2 e Legge a n d this C o u r t .

Despite the fact that Plaintiffs' o w n witness has testified that this download-to-product m a p p i n g s p r e a d s h e e t c o u l d e a s i l y h a v e b e e n g e n e r a t e d in M a r c h 2 0 0 7 , P l a i n t i f f s h a v e t h r o u g h o u t this case continued to assert that this information is not available and that the mapping exercise has to be done manually. For example: (a) O n February 13, 2008, Plaintiffs represented to Judge Legge at the first
SFI·625231 v I

25 26 27 28

- 10-

D E F S . · M O T I O N TO C O M P E L Case No. 07-CY-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page13 of 23

d i s c o v e r y hearing, as d e s c r i b e d above, stating that as o f that date, Plaintiffs d i d not have a m a p p i n g system;

2
3
4

5
6

( b ) O n A u g u s t 4, 2 0 0 9 , P l a i n t i f f s r e p r e s e n t e d t o J u d g e L a p o r t e t h a t " W e g a v e t h e m a l l o f t h e E S U s in t h i s d a t a b a s e s o t h a t for a n y g i v e n o n e o n t h e i r s y s t e m they could go find it in t h e d a t a b a s e that O r a c l e keeps for itself. T h e y c a n l o o k a t it. T h e y c a n s e e the s y s t e m code. T h e y c a n m a t c h it to a p i e c e o f software. T h e y c a n m a t c h t h a t p i e c e o f s o f t w a r e to w h a t a c u s t o m e r h a s l i c e n s e d . I t h i n k the c o m p l a i n t is t h a t there is not a n e a s y way to d o it. I ' m sorry, b u t i t ' s true. T h e r e is n o t a n e a s y w a y t o d o t h a t . . . . All I a m s a y i n g y o u r H o n o r , is t h a t w h a t e v e r information we have t h a t would allow you to map, we have given it to them·,,5 a n d (c) O n O c t o b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 , P l a i n t i f f s r e p r e s e n t e d i n a m e e t a n d c o n f e r l e t t e r t o D e f e n d a n t s that: " T h a t t h i s m a p p i n g c a n n o t b e e a s i l y a c c o m p l i s h e d i n a n a u t o m a t e d o r e l e c t r o n i c f a s h i o n is n e i t h e r O r a c l e ' s f a u l t n o r a n e x c u s e f o r D e f e n d a n t s ' t o c l a i m i t c a n n o t b e d o n e a t a l l . D e f e n d a n t s , like O r a c l e , m u s t take the e v i d e n c e a s it is, not d i s c l a i m it for n o t b e i n g in the form t h e y w o u l d like it t o b e . 6 In light o f J a s o n R i c e ' s D e c e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 9 testimony, the foregoing representations that t h e r e q u e s t e d d o w n l o a d - t o - p r o d u c t m a p p i n g information is n o t e a s i l y accessible in e l e c t r o n i c f o r m a n d t h a t a n y s u c h m a p p i n g h a s to b e d o n e m a n u a l l y a r e , a t t h e v e r y m i n i m u m , n o t a c c u r a t e . M o r e o v e r , it w o u l d b e i m p l a u s i b l e f o r P l a i n t i f f s t o n o w t a k e t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e y d i d n o t k n o w t h a t J a s o n R i c e h a d a c c e s s to t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n all a l o n g

7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 C o w a n Dec\. ~ 17, Exh. K ( P l a i n t i f f s ' p r i v i l e g e a n d r e d a c t i o n log entries, dated 0 2 / 1 3 / 0 7 t h r o u g h 03/16/07).

REDACTED

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

REDACTED

5 C o w a n Dec\. ~ 15, Exh. I (08/04/09 H earing Tr.), a t 33: 14-22 a n d 35: 12-14) ( e m p h a s i s added).
6 C o w a n Dec\. ~ 16, Exh. J ( 1 0 / 1 3 / 0 9 L e t t e r from Z. A l i n d e r to S. C o w a n a n d J. M c D o n e l l ) , a t 3 ( e m p h a s i s added).

7

C o w a n Dec\. ~ 7, Exh. A, at 11 :1-13:22. - 11 D E F S . ' M O T I O N TO C O M P E L Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

SFI-625231 v i

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page14 of 23

REDACTED
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

Adding further interest to this inquiry is the fact that during his December 4, 2009 deposition, Rice also conceded that another spreadsheet he created and that is relevant to the download-to-product mapping issue (marked as Defendants' Exhibit 935 at his deposition and attached as Exhibit H to the Cowan Declaration), was created on February 8, 2007. Cowan Dec!.
~

7, Exh. A, at 77:2-19. This spreadsheet contains download

audit information listing certain ESUs that were downloaded and showing the user ID and customer name and other user information associated with each downloaded ESU. Id. Thus, this document existed and was in Plaintiffs' possession on February 8, 2007. However, it was not produced until over two and h a l f years later on November 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 .

6.

T h r o u 2 h o u t this case, D e f e n d a n t s h a v e c o n t i n u o u s l y s o u g h t a l l e l e c t r o n i c d o w n l o a d - t o - p r o d u c t m a p p i n g in P l a i n t i f f s ' p o s s e s s i o n .

Although, Defendants originally took Plaintiffs at their word that they could not produce the information that Rice later testified on December 4 , 2 0 0 9 could in fact be produced, Defendants have continued to insist that Plaintiffs produce all down10ad-to-product mapping information in their possession, custody, or control. For example, in addition to the original discovery requests served in July 2007, Defendants have specifically requested this mapping information throughout fact discovery in this case, including, but not limited to, on November 19, 2007, December 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , January 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 , June 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 , July 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 , November 6 , 2 0 0 9 and N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 . 8

8 For the C o u r t ' s convenience, and in an effort to spare the Court from having to wade through reams o f pleadings, transcripts, and the parties' meet and confer communications, Defendants have consolidated in the single Appendix 6 to Cowan Declaration, incorporated by reference herein, excerpts from Exhibits L through R to the Cowan Declaration showing where Defendants specifically requested down10ad-to-product mapping information from Plaintiffs. throughout fact discovery in this case, including, but not limited to, on November 19, 2007, December 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , January 28, 2008, June 16,2009, July 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 , November 6 , 2 0 0 9 and November 17, 2009.
SFI-62523I v I

- 12 -

D E F S . ' M O T I O N TO C O M P E L Case No. 0 7 - C Y - I 6 5 8 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page15 of 23

7.
2
3
4

Plaintiffs should be compelled to p r o d u c e all d o w n l o a d - t o - p r o d u c t m a p p i n 2 i n f o r m a t i o n in t h e i r possession a n d to p r o v i d e f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e c r e a t i o n a n d access t o t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y have p r o d u c e d .

5
6
7

T h e information provided during J a s o n R i c e ' s deposition o n D e c e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 9 is a c l e a r indication that Plaintiffs have not fully and timely responded to RFP Nos. 44, 45, 47, and 51 and Int. N o . 7 . Thus, D e f e n d a n t s ' respectfully request this C o u r t to issue an o r d e r that:

8
9

I. C o m p e l s Plaintiffs to fully respond to T o m o r r o w N o w ' s First S e t o f Requests for P r o d u c t i o n Nos. 4 4 , 4 5 , 4 7 , and 51 ( " R F P Nos. 44, 45, 47 a n d 5 1 " ) a n d F i r s t S e t o f I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , N o . 7 ( " I n t . No. 7 ' ) ;
2. Requires Plaintiffs to certify that all d o c u m e n t s and information i n their possession, c u s t o d y o r control responsive to R F P Nos. 44, 45, 4 7 and 51 and Int. N o . 7 has b e e n p r o v i d e d t o D e f e n d a n t s ; 3. R e q u i r e s P l a i n t i f f s to i d e n t i f y , w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y , b y B a t e s n u m b e r o r o t h e r s u c h specific identifier w h i c h d o c u m e n t s Plaintiffs c o n t e n d they h a v e p r o d u c e d and that are responsive o r otherwise related to R F P Nos. 4 4 , 4 5 , 4 7 and 51 and Int. N o . 7 ; and 4. Requires Plaintiffs, for e a c h such documents Plaintiffs c o n t e n d they have p r o d u c e d a n d t h a t a r e r e s p o n s i v e o r o t h e r w i s e r e l a t e d t o R F P Nos. 4 4 , 4 5 , 4 7 a n d 51 and Int. N o . 7 , to identify who created the document, w h e n P l a i n t i f f acquired p o s s e s s i o n , c u s t o d y o r c o n t r o l o v e r the d o c u m e n t a n d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d therein, and w h e n it w a s p r o d u c e d to Defendants. T h e p r i m a r y p u r p o s e s o f t h i s p o r t i o n o f this m o t i o n are: ( 1 ) t o e n s u r e t h a t P l a i n t i f f s a r e u n d e r a C o u r t order to fully respond to R F P Nos. 4 4 , 4 5 , 4 7 , and 51 and lnt. N o . 7 , including the production and description o f all o f the download-to-product m a p p i n g information that is in their possession, custody, o r control; and (b) to require Plaintiffs to provide additional information regarding the information and d o c u m e n t s they have produced in response to those discovery r e q u e s t s , i n c l u d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the d a t e s o f c r e a t i o n a n d p r o d u c t i o n o f a n y s u c h documents and information. T h e foregoing request for r e l i e f is made subject to, without waiving, and in an effort to support, D e f e n d a n t s ' right to take further action o r s e e k further r e l i e f relating to P l a i n t i f f s ' delayed p r o d u c t i o n o f this critical information, including b u t not limited to, a motion to strike any expert testimony related to such information, a m o t i o n to p r e c l u d e the use o f a n y untimely p r o d u c e d evidence at trial, o r any other sanction o r r e m e d y that may be appropriate
S F I - 6 2 5 2 3 I vi

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18
19 20 21

22
23
24 25

26
27

28

- 13 -

D E F S . ' M O T I O N TO C O M P E L Case No. 07-CY-I658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page16 of 23

under the c i r c u m s t a n c e s .

2
3
4

B.

O R A C L E S H O U L D BE C O M P E L L E D T O P R O D U C E T H E F O L G E R DOCUMENTS.
1.

F a c t u a l Background.

5

I n 2 0 0 3 , P e o p l e S o f t s u e d O r a c l e i n A l a m e d a C o u n t y S u p e r i o r C o u r t ("PeopleSoft v.

6 7 8

O r a c l e " ) . M c D o n e l l D e c l . ~l, E x h . A ( R e d a c t e d S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t ) . 9 T h e S a n
Francisco l a w firm o f Folger, Levin & Kahn L L P ( " F o l g e r " ) represented P e o p l e S o f t in that action. Id. I n r e s p o n s e t o O r a c l e ' s hostile t a k e o v e r effort, P e o p l e S o f t c l a i m e d t h a t O r a c l e " d e l i b e r a t e l y s e t o u t to c r e a t e a n d h a s s u c c e e d e d i n c r e a t i n g fear, u n c e r t a i n t y , a n d d o u b t a m o n g P e o p l e S o f t ' s customers, prospective customers a n d others" a n d h a d " e m b a r k e d on a campaign o f d i s i n f o r m a t i o n i n a n a t t e m p t t o c r i p p l e P e o p l e S o f t ' s a b i l i t y to sell its s o f t w a r e . . . . " Id. a t
~~

9
10 11 12 13 14
15 16

3,12. P e o p l e S o f t a l s o c l a i m e d t h a t " O r a c l e ' s C F O , J e f f H e n l e y , t o l d a p r e s s c o n f e r e n c e that

O r a c l e d i d n o t i n t e n d to ' k e e p [ P e o p l e S o f t ] a l i v e ' " a n d t h a t " O r a c l e ' s E x e c u t i v e V i c e P r e s i d e n t a n d a m e m b e r o f its b o a r d , S a f r a C a t z , a d m i t t e d i n a n i n t e r n a l e m a i l : ' w e r e a l l y w o n ' t b e c o n t i n u i n g [ P e o p l e S o f t ' s ] p r o d u c t line.'" Id. a t ~ 3 7 ( e m p h a s i s omitted). T h e c r u x o f t h e c o m p l a i n t w a s that Oracle w a s causing customers to leave P e o p l e S o f t in o r d e r to reduce the value o f P e o p l e S o f t a n d a l l o w O r a c l e to a c q u i r e it m o r e c h e a p l y . 10 I n the c a s e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , O r a c l e a l l e g e s t h a t S A P u n d e r t o o k m a r k e t i n g e f f o r t s d e s i g n e d to e x a c e r b a t e " u n f o u n d e d , P e o p l e S o f t a n d J D E c u s t o m e r u n c e r t a i n t y a b o u t t h e p r o s p e c t s for l o n g - t e r m , q u a l i t y s u p p o r t f r o m O r a c l e . " F A C ( D k t . N o . 4 1 8 ) ,
~

17 18 19 20 21

83. I n contrast, D e f e n d a n t s

c o n t e n d t h a t t h e f e a r a n d u n c e r t a i n t y t h a t O r a c l e w a s c a u s i n g a m o n g the P e o p l e S o f t a n d I D E c u s t o m e r b a s e w a s n o t " u n f o u n d e d " a n d d i d c a u s e c u s t o m e r s to l e a v e O r a c l e . T h u s , e v i d e n c e o f 9 J. D. E d w a r d s w a s a l s o a p a r t y p l a i n t i f f in the a c t i o n a g a i n s t O r a c l e a n d also r e p r e s e n t e d b y Folger. Id.
10 J u d g e L e g g e a d d r e s s e d a d i f f e r e n t i s s u e i n his M a r c h 14, 2 0 0 8 R e p o r t a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s R e D i s c o v e r y H e a r i n g No. 1 ( D k t . No. 66). S p e c i f i c a l l y , h e a d d r e s s e d w h e t h e r O r a c l e s h o u l d b e r e q u i r e d t o s e a r c h its files r e l a t e d to t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f J u s t i c e ' s 2 0 0 4 a n t i t r u s t a c t i o n a g a i n s t O r a c l e in r e s p o n s e t o c e r t a i n d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t s . A t t h a t e a r l y s t a g e o f d i s c o v e r y , J u d g e L e g g e d e n i e d t h a t r e q u e s t w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e . T h e F o l g e r s u b p o e n a is d i r e c t e d t o a s e p a r a t e s t a t e c o u r t a c t i o n for u n f a i r c o m p e t i t i o n . T h u s , g i v e n t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e r e q u e s t s a t issue a n d J u d g e L e g g e ' s p r e v i o u s d e n i a l w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e , J u d g e L e g g e ' s d e c i s i o n h a s n o i m p a c t o n the F o l g e r s u b p o e n a .
SFI-625231 v I

22
23 24

25

26
27

28

- 14 -

D E F S . ' M O T I O N TO C O M P E L Case No. 07-CY-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page17 of 23

the actions Oracle i t s e l f took to create fear and uncertainty among the PeopleSoft and JOE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27

customer bases is relevant to the issue o f causation (i.e., w h y PeopleSoft and JOE customers chose to leave Oracle). Moreover, because Plaintiff Oracle USA, Inc. is the "successor" to PeopleSoft (F AC ~ 35), assertions made by PeopleSoft at that time are direct admissions by a party plaintiff to this case. By this motion, Defendants seek to compel compliance with a third party subpoena served on Folger seeking non-privileged pleadings and transcripts from PeopleSojt v. Oracle. I I Defendants served the subpoena on September 22, 2009, two and o n e - h a l f months before the close o f f a c t discovery. McDonell Decl. ~ 2, Exh. B (09/22/09 Folger subpoena). Because o f O r a c l e ' s preliminary indications o f resistance to the subpoena, Defendants included the issue in the Joint Discovery Conference Statement for the September 30, 2009 conference. Dkt. No. 493, at 19-21. Due to time limitations, the Court did not address the issue during that conference. Thereafter, Folger served objections and Oracle adopted the issue as its own. 12 McDonell Decl.
~

3, Exh. C (objections to subpoena). B y the time o f the November 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 Discovery

Conference, the issue was effectively joined, with Oracle arguing that the discovery was not sufficiently relevant to warrant the burden o f production. Dkt. No. 548, at 12-16. Oracle identified a universe o f 1,500 pleadings and a "small n u m b e r o f deposition transcripts" as potentially responsive and complained about the burden o f reviewing those documents in the last months o f fact discovery. McDonell Decl. McDonell), at 2.
~

5, Exh. E ( I 0/26/09 letter from G. Howard to 1.

2.

There Is No Undue Burden On Oracle.

The issue on this motion is really one o f burden, as Oracle cannot seriously contend that the discovery is wholly irrelevant. Indeed, it concedes that PeopleSoft alleged Oracle "engaged in acts aimed at creating FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt] aimed at the PeopleSoft customer
I I A copy o f the s u b p o e n a is attached as E x h i b i t B to the McDonell Declaration filed herewith. Defendants seek documents that have redactions in the publicly filed versions and are therefore not publicly available in their entirety.

28

12 Specifically, O r a c l e has agreed that this m o t i o n can b e directed to Plaintiffs and that there is no need for a motion directed to Folger. McDonell Decl. ~ 4, Ex. 0 (email exchange between 1. McDonell and G. Howard). SFI·62523I v I

- 15 -

DEFS.' MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 07-CV-1658 P l H (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page18 of 23

base." McDonell Decl.
2

~

5, Exh. E, at 2. O r a c l e ' s efforts to downplay and spin the significance

o f that FUD, however, simply underscores the need for Defendants to obtain the actual assertions made at the time. During the November 17 Discovery Conference, the Court provided guidance that appeared to resolve the issue in Defendants favor. Specifically, the Court directed Oracle to produce the index to the Folger legal file and indicated that Defendants would be j u s t i f i e d in identifying some much more limited set o f documents. McDonell Decl. Tr.), a t 3 5 : 2 0 - 3 6 : 2 . In accordance with that guidance, Oracle produced a thirty-two page index o f the legal pleadings purportedly representing the index o f pleadings maintained b y Folger related to
P e o p l e S o j t v. Oracle. McDonell Decl.
~
~

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

6, Exh. F ( I l l 17/09

7, Exh. G (11130/09 email from G. Howard to E.

Wallace). From that list, Defendants initially selected eighty-four documents. McDonell Decl.
~

8, Exh. H (12/01109 email from J. McDonell to G. Howard). Thereafter, Defendants narrowed
~

the request still further to sixty-four pleadings, plus the transcripts. McDonell Decl.

9, Exh. I

(12/10/09 email from J. McDonell to G. Howard, with attached list o f requested documents). On its face, the request for sixty-four documents from the universe o f 1,500 is " m u c h more limited" and in accordance with the C o u r t ' s guidance. In response, Oracle has refused to produce any o f the r e q u e s t e d d o c u m e n t s ; a s s e r t i n g t h a t D e f e n d a n t s m u s t i d e n t i f y w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y the r e l e v a n c e o f each requested document. McDonell DecL ~ 10. Because the descriptions o f the documents on the index are short and often cryptic, Defendants declined the offer as impractical and the issue was j o i n e d for this motion. Id. In terms o f relative burdens, it is worth noting that the scope o f third party discovery Defendants have served in this case is minimal in comparison to that served by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have served 156 third party subpoenas, compared to approximately 20 served by Defendants. McDonell Decl.
~

11. Moreover, Oracle has served discovery on four o f

Defendants' outside law firms. Id. Oracle will not bear an undue burden in responding to the subpoena. The effort to produce sixty-four pleadings and " a small number o f deposition transcripts" is de m i n i m u s in the context o f this case. Whether compared to the productions o f both parties, o r to productions by
SFI-625231vI

- 16 -

D E F S . ' MOTION T O C O M P E L Case No. 07 -CV- 1658 PJH ( E D L )

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page19 of 23

any o f the 156 third parties subpoenaed by Oracle, this is a very manageable task. M o r e o v e r , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9

D e f e n d a n t s h a v e o f f e r e d t o b e a r t h e r e a s o n a b l e c o s t o f F o l g e r ' s r e v i e w o r t o a l l e v i a t e as m u c h o f the burden as possible b y offering to review F o l g e r ' s d o c u m e n t s with a view toward possibly n a r r o w i n g t h e r e q u e s t s t i l l further. T h a t o f f e r r e m a i n s o p e n . F i n a l l y , the i n d e x p r o d u c e d b y O r a c l e c o n f i r m s the likely r e l e v a n c e o f the d o c u m e n t s and o n l y s t r e n g t h e n s D e f e n d a n t s ' i n t e r e s t them. A s e x a m p l e s , t h e p l e a d i n g s D e f e n d a n t s s e e k i n c l u d e factually intensive documents such as P e o p l e S o f t ' s interrogatory response co n cern in g " L o s t D e a l s A f t e r T e n d e r O f f e r , " a declaration in s u p p o r t o f O r a c l e ' s motion in limine regarding " P e o p l e S o f t ' s C u s t o m e r P r o o f o f L i a b i l i t y a n d D a m a g e s " a n d P e o p l e S o f t ' s o p p o s i t i o n to a m o t i o n i n l i m i n e r e g a r d i n g " i n t e r n a l O r a c l e c u s t o m e r s t r a t e g i e s . " M c D o n e l l Decl.
~

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

9, Ex. I, Nos.

15, 20, and 56. O n the surface, each o f these documents potentially b e a r s on t h e impact that O r a c l e w a s h a v i n g o n the P e o p l e S o f t c u s t o m e r b a s e , a n d t h a t in t u r n b e a r s u p o n a s s e s s i n g the i m p a c t D e f e n d a n t s h a d u p o n the P e o p l e S o f t c u s t o m e r base. In sum, the burden o f this p r o d u c t i o n is inconsequential and the potential r e l e v a n c e is significant. O r a c l e should be ordered to p r o d u c e the sixty-four identified d o c u m e n t s and the " s m a l l n u m b e r " o f d e p o s i t i o n t r a n s c r i p t s forthwith.

C.

ORACLE SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO UPDATE THE PRODUCTIONS OF SIX KEY CUSTODIANS.
1.

Factual Background.

In N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 , t h e p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a n E x p a n d e d D i s c o v e r y T i m e l i n e A g r e e m e n t (the " A g r e e m e n t " ) p u r s u a n t to which the relevant time period for discovery was e x p a n d e d from M a r c h 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e d a t e o f t h e i n i t i a l c o m p l a i n t , to O c t o b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e d a t e o n w h i c h T o m o r r o w N o w ceased operations. 13 McDonell Decl. ~ 12, Exh. J ( E x p a n d e d D i s c o v e r y Timeline Agreement). U n d e r the Agreement, the parties are p e r m i t t e d to request documents for the e x p a n d e d time period from " k e y c u s t o d i a n s " o r centralized sources relating to certain subject matters e n u m e r a t e d in the Agreement. Id. T h o s e s u b j e c t matters include " c u s t o m e r related
13 T h e A g r e e m e n t also e x p a n d s the r e l e v a n t time p e r i o d from J a n u a r y 1 , 2 0 0 4 b a c k to J a n u a r y I, 2002. However, the pre-2004 time period is not at issue in this motion.

SFI-62523 I v 1

- 17 -

D E F S . · M O T I O N TO C O M P E L Case No. 07-CY-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page20 of 23

d o c u m e n t s , " i n c l u d i n g d o c u m e n t s r e g a r d i n g " c u s t o m e r s r e t u r n i n g to O r a c l e from T N , c u s t o m e r s

2
3
4

lost by O r a c l e a n d efforts b y O r a c l e to m i t i g a t e its d a m a g e s , a n d c u s t o m e r s g a i n e d b y T N o r S A P . " Id. ( I t e m N o . 8 in the A g r e e m e n t ) . T h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r s a l s o include " D a m a g e s C a u s a t i o n a n d M i t i g a t i o n D o c u m e n t s , " a n d d o c u m e n t s r e l a t e d to the " T o m o r r o w N o w B u s i n e s s M o d e l , " i n c l u d i n g d o c u m e n t s r e l a t e d to " i n d e p e n d e n t third p a r t y s u p p o r t . " Id. ( I t e m Nos. 9 a n d 10 in t h e Agreement). O n M a y 2 0 , 2 0 0 9 , p u r s u a n t to the A g r e e m e n t , D e f e n d a n t s r e q u e s t e d u p d a t e d p r o d u c t i o n s f o r t h e M a r c h 2 0 0 7 t o O c t o b e r 2 0 0 8 t i m e p e r i o d f o r e l e v e n k e y c u s t o d i a n s . M c D o n e l l Dec!.
~

5
6 7 8
9

13,

Exh. K (05/20109 e m a i l from J. M c D o n e l l to O r a c l e ' s c o u n s e l ) . O n M a y 29, O r a c l e r e s p o n d e d t h a t it w o u l d m e e t a n d c o n f e r w i t h D e f e n d a n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e r e q u e s t a f t e r " i n v e s t i g a t i n g the b u r d e n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h [the] r e q u e s t . " Id. T h e p a r t i e s m e t a n d c o n f e r r e d o n J u n e 4 ( M c D o n e l l Dec!.
~

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

14) b u t , a s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w , t h e i r r e c o l l e c t i o n s o f t h e d i s c u s s i o n d i f f e r . O n N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 , D e f e n d a n t s r e q u e s t e d c o n f i r m a t i o n t h a t O r a c l e h a d u p d a t e d its

p r o d u c t i o n s for t h e e l e v e n k e y c u s t o d i a n s . M c D o n e l l D e c l .

~

15. O n N o v e m b e r 30, O r a c l e

r e s p o n d e d t h a t it h a d n o t u p d a t e d the p r o d u c t i o n s , a n d w o u l d not d o so, b e c a u s e it c o n s i d e r e d the r e q u e s t " i m p r o p e r w h e n first m a d e " a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y " a b a n d o n [ e d ] " b y D e f e n d a n t s . M c D o n e l l Dec!.
~

16, Exh. L, at 4 ( 1 1 / 3 0 / 0 9 letter f r o m Z. A l i n d e r to E. Wallace). O r a c l e c o n t e n d s t h a t it

o b j e c t e d d u r i n g the J u n e 4 c o n f e r e n c e t h a t the r e q u e s t for u p d a t e d p r o d u c t i o n s d i d n o t fit w i t h i n t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r s i d e n t i f i e d in t h e A g r e e m e n t a n d t h a t i t r e q u e s t e d f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n f r o m Defendants.
14

Id. O r a c l e also c o n t e n d s t h a t D e f e n d a n t s a g r e e d to, b u t d i d not, p r o v i d e a n y

f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n a n d thus " a b a n d o n [ e d ] " the issue. Id. D e f e n d a n t s ' r e c o r d o f t h e J u n e 4 c o n f e r e n c e is u n c l e a r , b u t D e f e n d a n t s d i s p u t e t h a t t h e y e v e r a b a n d o n e d t h e i r r e q u e s t s . M c D o n e l l Decl.
~

22
23 24 25 26

17. T h e p a r t i e s m e t a n d c o n f e r r e d a g a i n o n D e c e m b e r 2 , 2 0 0 9 . D e f e n d a n t s , in a n e f f o r t t o

limit the b u r d e n o n O r a c l e a n d r e c o g n i z i n g that there h a d b e e n a m i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n the p a r t i e s , o f f e r e d t o r e d u c e t h e o r i g i n a l list o f e l e v e n k e y c u s t o d i a n s t o s i x , i n c l u d i n g r e m o v i n g t o p
14 O r a c l e ' s N o v e m b e r 3 0 l e t t e r s t a t e s t h a t the m e e t a n d c o n f e r t o o k p l a c e o n J u n e 6, w h i c h w a s a S a t u r d a y . D e f e n d a n t s b e l i e v e t h i s is i n c o r r e c t . D e f e n d a n t s ' r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e m e e t a n d c o n f e r t o o k p l a c e o n T h u r s d a y , J u n e 4.

27
28

SFI-625231 v i

- 18 -

D E F S . ' MOTION T O COMPEL Case No. 07-CY-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page21 of 23

executives Larry Ellison, Safra Catz, and Charles Phillips from the list. 15 McDonell Decl. ~ 18. 2 3 4 5
6

Defendants also proposed to limit the search terms applicable to the u p d a t e d productions and, o n D e c e m b e r 4, provided Oracle a list o f 7 1 search terms, compared to the p a r t i e s ' usual list o f approximately 900 search terms. Id. at ~ 19. Nonetheless, Oracle refused to provide updated p r o d u c t i o n s , e v e n f o r the s i x k e y c u s t o d i a n s .

2.

D e f e n d a n t s ' Request Is Consistent W i t h T h e P a r t i e s ' Agreement.

7 8 9
10

O r a c l e ' s objection that D e f e n d a n t s ' request for updated productions is " i m p r o p e r " was unfounded in M a y 2009 w h e n Defendants first made the request, a n d is unfounded now. The six custodians to w h o m Defendants have n o w limited the request are all key custodians and all likely to h a v e responsive data relating to the subject matters identified i n Item Nos. 8 , 9 , and 10 in the Agreement: ·

11 12 13 14
15 16

J u e r g e n R o t t l e r is Executive Vice President, Oracle C u s t o m e r Services, w i t h
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r O r a c l e ' s s u p p o r t s e r v i c e s o r g a n i z a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g s u p p o r t sales. McDonell Decl.
~

20. His production for the original discovery time period includes

thousands o f pages relating to "customers returning to Oracle from TN, customers lost b y Oracle and efforts b y Oracle to mitigate its damages, a n d customers gained b y T N o r S A P " ( I t e m N o . 8 in t h e A g r e e m e n t ) , d a m a g e s c a u s a t i o n a n d m i t i g a t i o n ( I t e m N o . 9 in t h e Agreement), a n d third p a r t y support ( I t e m N o 10 in the Agreement). Id. ·

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25
26

J u a n J o n e s is Senior Vice President, Oracle Customer Services, N o r t h American Support
Services. M c D o n e l l Decl.
~

21. H e reports to M r . Rottler and is responsible for sales o f

support services in North America. Id. His production for the original discovery time period includes thousands o f pages relating to Item Nos. 8 , 9 , a n d 10 in the Agreement. Id. ·

C h r i s M a d s e n is O r a c l e ' s Senior Director, Support Services. McDonell Decl. ~ 22. He
reports to Mr. Jones. Id. His name appears o n thousands o f documents from the original discovery time p e r i o d relating to Item Nos. 8, 9, and l O i n the Agreement. Id.

27 28

15 T h e six c u s t o d i a n s are J u e r g e n Rottler, J u a n Jones, R i c k C u m m i n s , M i c h a e l V a n Boening, Chris Madsen, a n d Robert Lachs. These six were selected from a total o f 131 c u s t o d i a n s identified b y Defendants. SFI-625231vl

- 19 -

D E F S . · MOTION T O C O M P E L Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document566

Filed12/11/09 Page22 of 23

·

Rick Cummins is O r a c l e ' s Senior Director o f Support Renewals for North America.

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 · ·

McDonell Decl.

~

23. He reports to Mr. Madsen. Id. He was O r a c l e ' s Rule 30(b)(6)

witness on topics relating to Item Nos. 8, 9, and l O i n the Agreement, including third party s u p p o r t p r o v i d e r s , O r a c l e ' s c o m m u n i c a t i o n s with c u s t o m e r s r e g a r d i n g t h i r d p a r t y s u p p o r t , and O r a c l e ' s efforts to stop customers going to third party support providers and to win customers back from third party support providers, including TomorrowNow. Id. His production for the original discovery time period includes thousands o f pages relating to Item Nos. 8, 9, and 10 in the Agreement. Id.
Robert Lachs is a former Regional Sales Manager, Support Sales. McDonell Decl.
~

24.

He was responsible for numerous support sales representatives whose territories included dozens o f TomorrowNow customers. His production for the original discovery time period includes thousands o f pages relating to Item Nos. 8 , 9 , and 10 in the Agreement.
Id.

Michael Van Boening is a Senior Support Sales Representative. McDonell Decl.

~

25.

In addition to frequent interactions with customers as part o f his sales duties, he was involved in O r a c l e ' s efforts to collect information regarding third party support providers and in compiling information on customers won back from third party support providers, including TomorrowNow. Id. His production for the original discovery time period includes thousands o f pages relating to Item Nos. 8 , 9 , and 10 in the Agreement. Id.

***
The positions o f these six custodians and the content o f their productions for the original