Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 589

Memorandum in Opposition to 566 Defendants' Motion to Compel filed byOracle EMEA Limited, Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc., Siebel Systems, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alinder, Zachary) (Filed on 1/5/2010) Modified on 1/6/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP DONN P. PICKETT (SBN 72257) GEOFFREY M. HOWARD (SBN 157468) HOLLY A. HOUSE (SBN 136045) ZACHARY J. ALINDER (SBN 209009) BREE HANN (SBN 215695) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4067, U.S.A. Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415.393.2286 [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) JENNIFER GLOSS (SBN 154227) 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 650.506.7144 [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, Oracle EMEA Limited, and Siebel Systems, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

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

No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL Date: Time: Place: Judge: January 26, 2010 2 p.m. Courtroom E, 15th Floor Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte

22 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

This Motion to Compel was filed by Defendants SAP AG, SAP America, Inc. and TomorrowNow, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") and opposed by plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, Oracle EMEA Limited, and Siebel Systems, Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs" or "Oracle"). After considering the pleadings and memoranda submitted by the parties, and all supporting papers, and having heard the arguments of counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all of the requests for relief identified in Defendants' Motion to Compel are DENIED as follows: First, Defendants request an order compelling Oracle to produce certain discovery and related information pertaining to a category of information Defendants describe as "mapping." This request is DENIED. Defendants violated the Court's requirement that the parties' final motion to compel should include only three discrete topics. This first request is overbroad, combining multiple old discovery requests on tangentially related issues already the subject of past motions. Further, the relief requested includes protected work product that should remain protected for multiple reasons, including because Defendants could have, and appear to actually have, accessed the information at issue on their own. In addition, complying with Defendants' requested relief on this topic would create an undue burden on Oracle and the request is also denied on this basis. Second, Defendants request an order compelling production of information responsive to a third party subpoena to Oracle's counsel Folger Levin & Kahn LLP seeking documents from the PeopleSoft v. Oracle state court litigation. This request is also DENIED. Defendants' request is untimely and seeks irrelevant material. Third, Defendants request an order compelling Oracle to "update the productions of six key custodians pursuant to the parties' Expanded Discovery Timeline Agreement." This third request is also DENIED. Defendants abandoned this information by failing to properly follow-up during discovery and made statements to Oracle and the Court that directly contradict their position. Defendants' delay in seeking this information has also increased the undue burden to collect and produce the information, and the request is separately denied on that basis.

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ________________, 2010 Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte United States Magistrate Judge

2
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL