Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 574

EXHIBITS re 571 Declaration in Support, of Chad Russell filed byOracle EMEA Limited, Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc., Siebel Systems, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit V, # 2 Exhibit W, # 3 Exhibit X, # 4 Exhibit Y, # 5 Exhibit Z, # 6 Exhibit AA)(Related document(s) 571 ) (Russell, Chad) (Filed on 12/11/2009)

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 574 Att. 3

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page1 of 41

EXHIBIT Y

Dockets.Justia.com

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page2 of 41

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 (SBN 060359) Jason McDonell (SBN 115084) Elaine Wallace (SBN 197882) JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Tharan Gregory Lanier (SBN 138784) Jane L. Froyd (SBN 220776) JONES DAY 1755 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Scott W. Cowan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Joshua L. Fuchs (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) JONES DAY 717 Texas, Suite 3300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants SAP AG, SAP AMERICA, INC., and TOMORROWNOW, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ORACLE USA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAP AG, et al., Defendants. Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL) DEFENDANTS' SECOND AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANTS TOMORROWNOW, INC., SAP AG, AND SAP AMERICA, INC. CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
HUI-121381v1 DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page3 of 41

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

PROPOUNDING PARTIES: RESPONDING PARTY: SET NUMBER:

Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, and Oracle EMEA, Ltd. Defendants TomorrowNow, Inc., SAP America, Inc., and SAP AG Three

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants TomorrowNow, Inc., SAP America, Inc., and SAP AG amend and supplement their responses and object as follows to the third set of requests for admission from plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, and Oracle EMEA, Ltd. ("Plaintiffs"). GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES The following General Objections apply to and are incorporated by reference into each response set forth below. These objections are made without waiver of, or prejudice to, these or other objections Defendants may make; all such objections are expressly preserved. 1. Defendants object to each Request for Admission to the extent that it enlarges

upon or is otherwise inconsistent with the duties imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules for the Northern District of California, any applicable order of this Court, or any agreement of the parties. 2. Defendants object to each Request for Admission to the extent that it seeks

information that is not within TomorrowNow's possession, custody, or control. 3. Defendants object to each Request for Admission to the extent that it seeks

information that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, or is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence that is relevant to any claim or defense, under Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants specifically object to each request for admission as unduly burdensome, oppressive, and calling for information that is neither relevant to any claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, to the extent the request seeks documents or information unrelated to PeopleSoft, J.D. Edwards ("JDE"), or Siebel products as to which TomorrowNow

HUI-121381v1

1

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page4 of 41

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

provided support to customers, except to the very limited extent the parties have agreed and the Court has ordered otherwise. 4. Defendants object to each Request for Admission as unreasonable and unduly

burdensome to the extent that it requests information that is already within Plaintiffs' possession, already known or disclosed to Plaintiffs, or readily accessible and/or equally available to Plaintiffs or is available from public sources. 5. Defendants object to each Request for Admission to the extent that it seeks

information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product immunity, or is protected from production by any other applicable privilege or immunity. Inadvertent disclosure of any privileged communications or work product shall not constitute a waiver of privilege or of any other basis for objecting to discovery with respect to such information. 6. Defendants object to each Request for Admission to the extent that it improperly

seeks a legal conclusion. 7. Defendants object to each Request for Admission to the extent that its seeks

information containing trade secrets, proprietary information, or other confidential or competitively sensitive business information. Such information will be provided only subject to the protective order in this case. 8. Defendants object to the extent the relevant time period is undefined, defined

vaguely, or includes time periods that are not relevant to any claim or issue in this case. 9. Defendants object to the definition of "Copy" as being overly broad, unduly

burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it purports to encompass anything beyond the term as defined under U.S. copyright law. Defendants further object to Plaintiffs' use of the term "copy" in these requests as improperly shifting the burden of proof to Defendants. 10. Defendants object to the definition of "Customer" to the extent the requests

containing the term require Defendants to produce data for all of "Defendants' current and former customers." The definition is overly broad, unduly burdensome, designed to harass, and not

HUI-121381v1

2

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page5 of 41

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

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants will only respond to the extent the Customer had a contract with TomorrowNow. 11. Defendants object to the definition of "Database" as overly broad, vague, and

ambiguous to the extent the term is defined as a component of a PeoplseSoft environment "generally referred to by the `DATABASE_RESTORE' field in BakTrak" and to the extent the definition is said to include "application engine files." The general reference to a BakTrak field designed to track whether a database restore occurred does not provide a specific definition of this term and is confusing. Further, Defendants object to the term "application engine files" to the extent the use of the word "file" excludes "definitions." 12. Defendants object to the definition of "Download" to the extent the requests

containing the term require Defendants to produce data regarding material not downloaded from the "Customer Connection" website. As Plaintiffs state in their fourth objection to TomorrowNow's First Set of Interrogatories, "[o]ther Oracle support websites or FTP sites are not at issue in this litigation, and . . . [the] definition calls for irrelevant materials and would impose an excessive burden . . . ." The definition of "Download" calls for irrelevant materials and imposes an excessive burden. 13. Defendants object to the definition of "Employees" as being overly broad, unduly

burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it encompasses persons "purporting to act on behalf of the entity to which the term refers." 14. Defendants object to the definition of "Environment" as being overly broad,

unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it includes individual environment components and is not intended to only refer to all environment components working as one unit. 15. Defendants object to the definition of "Fix" as being overly broad, unduly

burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it includes Master Fix records as included in the SAS database.

HUI-121381v1

3

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page6 of 41

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

16.

Defendants object to the definition of "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague,

confusing, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrases "discrete unit of code" and "units of code," as not all objects contain code. Defendants object to the use of the term "any" as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendants further object that the definition is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it includes the undefined terms "functions" and "other data structures." Moreover, Defendants object that the list of what is included in the definition ("PeopleCode objects, fields, records, pages, menus, components, messages, panels, stored statements, panel groups, rule packages, COBOL source code files, COBOL executables, SQR files, SQC files, writer files, Crystal Reports files, SQL scripts, database creation scripts, DAT files, DMS files, project files, batch files, configuration files, or other similar units of code contained in the PeopleSoft or JD Edwards products serviced or supported by any Defendant") is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, duplicative, and misleading because this list includes: (1) terms which were not normally part of an object as that term was used at TomorrowNow, e.g., "database creation scripts," "COBOL executables," and "configuration files"; (2) terms which can have the same meaning, e.g. "panels" and "pages"; and (3) terms which are very broad and undefined, e.g., "writer files," "project files," and "batch files." Defendants will respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "fix object's" place. 17. Defendants object to the definition of "Generic Environment" as being overly

broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants further object that the term "generic environment" is misleading to the extent that includes HR751CSS as an example, as Defendants deny that HR751CSS is a generic environment. Defendants further object to the definition of "Generic Environment" to the extent it incorporates the overly broad, unduly burdensome, and vague term "Environment," to which Defendants object above. 18. Defendants object to the definition of "Local Environment" as being overly broad,

unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it not limited to all environment components working as one unit and
HUI-121381v1

4

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page7 of 41

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

located at TomorrowNow. Defendants further object to the definition of "Local Environment" to the extent it incorporates the overly broad, unduly burdensome, and vague term "Environment," to which Defendants object above. 19. Defendants object to the definition of "Online Objects" as being overly broad,

unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it incorporates the overly broad, unduly burdensome, and vague term "Environment," to which Defendants object above. 20. Defendants object to the definition of "PS_Home" as overly broad, vague, and

ambiguous to the extent the term is defined as a component of a PeopleSoft environment "generally referred to by the `NT_RESTORE' and `UNIX_RESTORE' fields in BakTrak" and to the extent that the definition is stated to include "writer files." The general reference to a BakTrak field designed to track whether a PS_Home restore occurred does not provide a specific definition of this term and is confusing. Further, Defendants object to the term "writer files" as undefined, vague, and ambiguous. 21. Defendants object to the definition of "Registered Work" as being overly broad,

unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it purports to include "any subsequently added copyright registrations in any later amended complaint" or any copyright registrations beyond those identified in the Third Amended Complaint. Defendants further object to the definition of "Registered Work" to the extent it purports to encompass anything beyond the term as defined under U.S. copyright law. Defendants further object to Plaintiffs' use of the term "registered work" in these requests as improperly shifting the burden of proof to Defendants. 22. Defendants object to Plaintiffs' definitions of "SAP AG," "SAP America," "SAP

TN," "You," or "Your" to the extent that those definitions include persons or entities other than TomorrowNow, SAP America and SAP AG. Defendants further object to the extent Plaintiffs' definitions improperly expand the scope of discovery by seeking data that is not currently in the possession, custody, or control of Defendants.

HUI-121381v1

5

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page8 of 41

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

23.

Defendants objects to Plaintiffs' definition of "SAP IP" as being unduly

burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 24. Defendants object to Plaintiffs' definition and use of the term "SAP TN," as

TomorrowNow, Inc. is not now and never has been known as SAP TN. 25. Defendants object to the definition of "Software and Support Materials" to the

extent the definition includes Siebel-branded products, which are only at issue in the litigation pursuant to the limits imposed by the Court's June 4, 2009 Stipulated Revised Case Management and Pretrial Order. Defendants will only respond consistent with the discovery limits in place in this case. 26. Defendants object to the definition of "Update" as being overly broad, unduly

burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it includes "fix," a term to which Defendants object above. 27. Defendants' responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admission do not constitute

admissions or acknowledgements that the information sought is within the proper scope of discovery or admissible at trial. 28. Defendants' discovery and investigation in connection with this case are

continuing. As a result, Defendants' responses are limited to information obtained and reviewed to date, and are given without prejudice to Defendants' right to amend or supplement its responses based on newly obtained or reviewed information. 29. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b), any and all admissions made by Defendants through

the following responses are made for the purpose of this pending civil action only and are not an admission for any other purpose nor may any such admissions be used against Defendants in any other proceeding. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION REQUEST NO. 1: Admit that TN Hard Drive 78, produced as TN-OR04497668, satisfies the authenticity requirements of Rule 901(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

HUI-121381v1

6

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page9 of 41

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

materials would then be available for customer-specific downloads by TomorrowNow's customers who would use their customer-specific log-in credentials to download their respective materials. On certain occasions, certain of the items lised on TN-OR04497668 may have been either e-mailed, sent on CD by Federal Express or otherwise transmitted to the specific customer for whom those items were intended. And, in certain instances, information regarding such transmittals was recorded in TomorrowNow's SAS databases. Defendants are unaware of any definitive set of records which would, in a readily obtainable way, indicate whether all the items listed on TN-OR04497668 were actually sent to, and/or received by, the intended recipient listed for each item. REQUEST NO. 12: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that the listed Fix Object contains more than a de minimis amount of protectable subject matter pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 102. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to this request for admission because it calls for a conclusion of law. Defendants object to this request for admission because it calls for expert opinion. Defendants further object that the phrase "protectable subject matter" is undefined, vague, and ambiguous. Defendants further object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, this request is DENIED. REQUEST NO. 13: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that a Copy of the listed Fix Object was Created using a Local Environment.

HUI-121381v1

15

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page10 of 41

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

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "created," and "local environment" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants further object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 14: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that, if a Copy of the listed Fix Object was tested, a Copy of the listed Fix Object was tested using a Local Environment. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "tested," and "local environment" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further,
HUI-121381v1

16

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page11 of 41

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

Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants further object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 15: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that a Copy of the listed Fix Object was Created using a Local Environment that did not solely consist of an installation from, a Copy of, or an installation from a Copy of software received from or on behalf of the recipient stated for the respective item. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "created," and "local environment" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object that the phrase "that did not solely consist of an installation from, a Copy of, or an installation from a Copy of software received from or on behalf of the recipient
HUI-121381v1

17

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page12 of 41

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

stated for the respective item" is vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 16: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that a Copy of the listed Fix Object was tested using a Local Environment that did not solely consist of an installation from, a Copy of, or an installation from a Copy of software received from or on behalf of the recipient stated for the respective item. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "tested," and "local environment" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object that the phrase "that did not solely consist of an installation from, a Copy of, or an installation from a Copy of software received from or on behalf of the recipient stated for the respective item" is vague and ambiguous. Defendants further object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit
HUI-121381v1

18

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page13 of 41

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

of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 17: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that a Copy of the listed Fix Object was Created using a Generic Environment. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "created," and "generic environment" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED.

HUI-121381v1

19

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page14 of 41

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

REQUEST NO. 18: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that, if a Copy of the listed Fix Object was tested, a Copy of the listed Fix Object was tested using a Generic Environment. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "tested," and "generic environment" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object that this is an incomplete and confusing hypothetical. Defendants further object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought by these confusing and incomplete hypotheticals was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 19: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that a Copy of the listed Fix Object was Created using a Local Environment to which at least one fix, patch, upgrade or update retrofitted from an Oracle-created or Oracle-delivered fix, patch, upgrade or update had been applied. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and
HUI-121381v1

20

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page15 of 41

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

Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "created," "local environment," and "retrofitted" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought by these requests was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 20: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that, if a Copy of the listed Fix Object was tested, a Copy of the listed Fix Object was tested using a Local Environment to which at least one fix, patch, upgrade or update retrofitted from an Oracle-created or Oracle-delivered fix, patch, upgrade or update had been applied. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "tested," "local environment," and "retrofitted" make this request overly broad, vague, and
HUI-121381v1

21

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page16 of 41

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

ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object that this is an incomplete and confusing hypothetical. Defendants further object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Response and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought by these confusing and incomplete hypotheticals was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 21: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that, for the listed Fix Object, at least one fix, patch, upgrade or update that had been applied to a Local Environment used to Create a Copy of the listed Fix Object had not been developed solely for or on behalf of the recipient stated for that item. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "created," and "local environment," make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object that the phrase "at least one fix, patch, upgrade or update that had been applied to a Local Environment used to Create a Copy of the listed Fix Object" and the overall sentence structure is vague, confusing, and ambiguous. Defendants also object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the
HUI-121381v1

22

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page17 of 41

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

request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants further object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, due to the vague, confusing, and ambiguous language and sentence structure, Defendants are unable to determine the meaning of these requests, and so they are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 22: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that, for the listed Fix Object, if any testing occurred, at least one fix, patch, upgrade or update that had been applied to a Local Environment used to test a Copy of the listed Fix Object had not been developed solely for or on behalf of the recipient stated for that item. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "test," and "local environment," make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object that the phrase "at least one fix, patch, upgrade or update that had been applied to a Local Environment used to test a Copy of the listed Fix Object" and the overall sentence structure is vague, confusing, and ambiguous. Defendants also object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants further object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, due to the
HUI-121381v1

23

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page18 of 41

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

vague, confusing, and ambiguous language and sentence structure, Defendants are unable to determine the meaning of these requests, and so they are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 23: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that a Copy of the listed Fix Object was Created using a Copy of PeopleTools. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," and "created" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought by these requests was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 24: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that, if a Copy of the listed Fix Object was tested, a Copy of the listed Fix Object was tested using a Copy of PeopleTools. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and
HUI-121381v1

24

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page19 of 41

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

Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," and "tested" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object that this is an incomplete and confusing hypothetical. Defendants further object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought by these confusing and incomplete hypotheticals was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 25: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that a Copy of the listed Fix Object was Created using a Copy of PeopleTools, the source of which was neither an installation from, nor a Copy of, nor an installation from a Copy of software received from or on behalf of the recipient stated for the respective item. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy" and
HUI-121381v1

25

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page20 of 41

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

"created" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought by these requests was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 26: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that, if a Copy of the listed Fix Object was tested, a Copy of the listed Fix Object was tested using a Copy of PeopleTools, the source of which was neither an installation from, nor a Copy of, nor an installation from a Copy of software received from or on behalf of the recipient stated for the respective item. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy" and "tested" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object that this is an incomplete and confusing hypothetical. Defendants further object to the term "Fix
HUI-121381v1

26

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page21 of 41

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

Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought by these confusing and incomplete hypotheticals was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 27: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that a Copy of the listed Fix Object was Created using a Copy of PeopleTools from a Generic Environment. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "created," and "generic environment" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought by these requests was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED.
HUI-121381v1

27

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page22 of 41

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

REQUEST NO. 28: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that, if a Copy of the listed Fix Object was tested, a Copy of the listed Fix Object was tested using a Copy of PeopleTools from a Generic Environment. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 28: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "tested," and "generic environment" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object that this is an incomplete and confusing hypothetical. Defendants further object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry, based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought by these confusing and incomplete hypotheticals was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 29: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that, in Creating a Copy of the listed Fix Object, SAP TN made a backup copy of at least one Local Environment. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and
HUI-121381v1

28

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page23 of 41

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

Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "creating," "copy," "backup copy," and "local environment" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought by these requests was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 30: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that, if a Copy of the listed Fix Object was tested, in testing a Copy of the listed Fix Object, SAP TN made a backup copy of at least one Local Environment. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 30: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "tested/testing," "backup copy," and "local environment" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome
HUI-121381v1

29

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page24 of 41

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

in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object that this is an incomplete and confusing hypothetical. Defendants further object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought by these confusing and incomplete hypotheticals was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 31: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that, in Creating a Copy of the listed Fix Object, SAP TN restored at least one Local Environment from a backup copy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 31: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "creating," "backup copy," "restored," and "local environment" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a
HUI-121381v1

30

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page25 of 41

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

reasonable inquiry, based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought by these requests was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 32: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that, if a Copy of the listed Fix Object was tested, in testing a Copy of the listed Fix Object, SAP TN restored at least one Local Environment from a backup copy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 32: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "tested/testing," "backup copy," "restored," and "local environment" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object that this is an incomplete and confusing hypothetical. Defendants further object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought by these confusing and incomplete hypotheticals was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED.

HUI-121381v1

31

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page26 of 41

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

REQUEST NO. 33: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that, in Creating a Copy of the listed Fix Object, SAP TN made a Copy of at least one Local Environment. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 33: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "creating," and "local environment" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants further object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought by these requests was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 34: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that, if a Copy of the listed Fix Object was tested, in testing a Copy of the listed Fix Object, SAP TN made a copy of at least one Local Environment. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 34: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with
HUI-121381v1

32

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page27 of 41

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

respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "tested/testing," and "local environment" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object that this is an incomplete and confusing hypothetical. Defendants further object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought by these confusing and incomplete hypotheticals was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 35: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that, in Creating a Copy of the listed Fix Object, SAP TN modified at least one Local Environment. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 35: Defendants object to this request on the grounds stated in the General Objections and Responses. Defendants' response is based solely on Defendant TomorrowNow's knowledge with respect to the information sought in this request because Defendants SAP AG and SAP America have no additional knowledge separate and apart from the information provided by Defendant TomorrowNow in this response. Defendants object to the request because the terms "copy," "creating," "modified," and "local environment" make this request overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. Further, Defendants object to this request as compound and unduly burdensome in that this request asks 33,185 separate questions, and the request would require Defendants to
HUI-121381v1

33

DEFENDANTS' 2ND AMENDED AND SUPP. RESP. TO PLAINTIFFS' 3RD SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document574-4

Filed12/11/09 Page28 of 41

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

review substantial business records to determine an answer, if possible, for each of the 33,185 separate requests. Defendants also object to the term "Fix Object" as overly broad, vague, and inaccurate to the extent it includes the phrase "discrete unit of code." Defendants respond as if the undefined term "object" was used in "Fix Object's" place. Subject to the General Objections and Responses and these specific objections, after a reasonable inquiry and based on Defendants' understanding of these questions, Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to these requests as the information sought by these requests was not tracked, recorded, or maintained by TomorrowNow in a "readily obtainable manner." On this basis, therefore, these requests are DENIED. REQUEST NO. 36: For each item 1-33186 on Exhibit D, admit that, in Creating a Copy of the listed Fix Object, SAP TN modified at least one Local Environment so a