Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 657

Declaration of Zachary J. Alinder in Support of 649 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed byOracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47, # 48 Exhibit 48, # 49 Exhibit 49, # 50 Exhibit 50, # 51 Exhibit 51, # 52 Exhibit 52, # 53 Exhibit 53, # 54 Exhibit 54 - 1, # 55 Exhibit 54 - 2, # 56 Exhibit 55, # 57 Exhibit 56, # 58 Exhibit 57, # 59 Exhibit 58, # 60 Exhibit 59, # 61 Exhibit 60, # 62 Exhibit 61, # 63 Exhibit 62, # 64 Exhibit 63, # 65 Exhibit 64, # 66 Exhibit 65, # 67 Exhibit 66, # 68 Exhibit 67, # 69 Exhibit 68, # 70 Exhibit 69, # 71 Exhibit 70, # 72 Exhibit 71, # 73 Exhibit 72, # 74 Exhibit 73, # 75 Exhibit 74, # 76 Exhibit 75, # 77 Exhibit 76, # 78 Exhibit 77, # 79 Exhibit 78, # 80 Exhibit 79, # 81 Exhibit 80, # 82 Exhibit 81, # 83 Exhibit 82, # 84 Exhibit 83, # 85 Exhibit 84, # 86 Exhibit 85, # 87 Exhibit 86, # 88 Exhibit 87, # 89 Exhibit 88, # 90 Exhibit 89, # 91 Exhibit 90, # 92 Exhibit 91, # 93 Exhibit 92, # 94 Exhibit 93, # 95 Exhibit 94, # 96 Exhibit 95, # 97 Exhibit 96, # 98 Exhibit 97, # 99 Exhibit 98, # 100 Exhibit 99, # 101 Exhibit 100, # 102 Exhibit 101, # 103 Exhibit 102, # 104 Exhibit 103, # 105 Exhibit 104, # 106 Exhibit 105, # 107 Exhibit 106, # 108 Exhibit 107, # 109 Exhibit 108, # 110 Exhibit 109, # 111 Exhibit 110, # 112 Exhibit 111, # 113 Exhibit 112, # 114 Exhibit 113, # 115 Exhibit 114, # 116 Exhibit 115, # 117 Exhibit 116, # 118 Exhibit 117)(Related document(s) 649 ) (Howard, Geoffrey) (Filed on 3/3/2010)

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 657 Att. 96

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document657-97

Filed03/03/10 Page1 of 9

EXHIBIT 96

Dockets.Justia.com

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document657-97

Filed03/03/10 Page2 of 9

1

2

3
4

5

6

Robert A. Mittelstaedt (SBN 060359) J a s o n M c D o n e l l ( S B N 115084) Elaine Wallace (SBN 197882) JONES DAY San Francisco Office 555 California Street, 26 th Floor San 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] Tharan Gregory Lanier (SBN 138784) Jane L. Froyd (SBN 220776) JONES D A Y S i l i c o n Valley O f f i c e 1755 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 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. Cowan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Joshua L. Fuchs (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) JONES D A Y 717 Texas, Suite 3300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (832) 2 3 9 - 3 9 3 9 Facsimile: (832) 2 3 9 - 3 6 0 0 [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants SAP AG, SAP AMERlCA, INC., and TOMORROWNOW, INC. U N I T E D STATES D I S T R I C T C O U R T NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ORACLE USA, [NC., et a!., Plaintiffs,
v.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EJL) D E F E N D A N T S A P AG AND S A P AMERICA, INC. 'S SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN RESPONSE TO ORACLE D A T A B A S E R U L E 30(B)(6) TESTIMONY CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT T O PROTECTIVE ORDER
S A P ORACLE DATABASE RULE 30(b)(6) S U P P L E M E N T A L WRITTEN R E S P O N S E Case No. 07-CY-1658 PJH (EJL)

SAP AG, et al. 26 Defendants. 27 28

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document657-97

Filed03/03/10 Page3 of 9

1 2 3 4
5

O n D e c e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 , pursuant to t h e agreement o f t h e parties, Defendants SAP AG and SAP America, Inc., subject to their objections, provided the following Supplemental Written Response ( " W r i t t e n Response") to the S e p t e m b e r 30, 2 0 0 9 N o t i c e s and N o v e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 A m e n d e d N o t i c e s o f Deposition o f SAP AG, Inc. and SAP America, Inc. pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) R e g a r d i n g Oracle Database ("Notices"). T h a t Written Response supplemented the prior Rule 30(b)(6) testimony on the topics in the Notices by Mr. Georg Schraeder given on N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 . A t P l a i n t i f f s ' s p e c i f i c r e q u e s t , D e f e n d a n t s are n o w s u b m i t t i n g a r e f o r m a t e d Written Response which does not modify or alter the substance o f the prior Written Response in any form. T h e Written Response was, and this reformatted Written Response is, intended to be used as an interrogatory response pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 o f the Federal Rules o f Civil Procedure. S A P A G a n d S A P A m e r i c a , I n c . ( t o g e t h e r " S A P " ) i n c o r p o r a t e b y r e f e r e n c e , as i f f u l l y s e t forth herein, their objections and responses served on N o v e m b e r 2, 2009 to the Notices. SAP r e s e r v e s the r i g h t t o s u p p l e m e n t o r a m e n d t h i s W r i t t e n R e s p o n s e s h o u l d a d d i t i o n a l o r d i f f e r e n t information b e discovered. This response is m a d e subject to, and without waiving, the attorneyclient privilege, w o r k product immunity, o r any o t h e r applicable privilege. Thus, nothing in this W r i t t e n R e s p o n s e r e v e a l s a n y a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t c o m m u n i c a t i o n s o r a n y i n f o r m a t i o n p r o t e c t e d b y the a t t o r n e y w o r k p r o d u c t i m m u n i t y o r a n y o t h e r a p p l i c a b l e p r i v i l e g e , a n d S A P w i l l n o t reveal a n y such privileged information. Moreover, this response does not, and is not intended to, contain a n y l e g a l a d v i c e o r o p i n i o n s . S u b j e c t to a n d w i t h o u t w a i v i n g t h e s e o b j e c t i o n s a n d q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , S A P r e s p o n d s as f o l l o w s :

6 7

8
9 10 11 12 13
14

15

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

-2-

SAP ORACLE DATABASE RULE 30(b)(6) S U P P L E M E N T A L W R I l T E N RESPONSE Case No. 07-CY-1658 P J H (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document657-97

Filed03/03/10 Page4 of 9

1
2

3
4

5 6
7

F.

W h a t a c t i o n s , i f any, did SAP t a k e to investigate w h e t h e r TN a l r e a d y h a d copies o f O r a c l e d a t a b a s e software on its systems a f t e r receiving T N ' s 2005 requests f o r a s t a n d a r d e d i t i o n license? W h o p e r f o r m e d t h o s e a c t i o n s ? W h e n d i d t h e y o c c u r ? W h a t did S A P l e a r n f r o m those a c t i o n s ?
D u r i n g t h e p o s t - a c q u i s i t i o n 2005 t i m e p e r i o d , S A P o n l y h a d t h e s a m e g e n e r a l

8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22

understanding that installations o f database server software would likely be used by T o m o r r o w N o w as a component o f the PeopleSoft enterprise software. Based o n communications b e t w e e n T o m o r r o w N o w and S A P employees, S A P reasonably u n d e r s t o o d that T o m o r r o w N o w was seeking a license for Oracle database server software, b u t h a d no specific understanding that T o m o r r o w N o w had, o r h a d b e e n u s i n g , s u c h O r a c l e d a t a b a s e s e r v e r s o f t w a r e . In M a r c h 2005, the Vice President o f Global Automation and IT for TomorrowNow, Greg Nelson, sent a budget review document to John Schaeffer, an SAP employee in the financials d e p a r t m e n t . S e e S A P - O R 0 0 8 4 4 4 0 6 . T h i s d o c u m e n t p r o v i d e d a l i s t o f h a r d w a r e and s o f t w a r e T o m o r r o w N o w wanted to purchase. This document was created to provide SAP a two-year projection o f expenses and permit SAP to analyze the expenses from a financial perspective. In the budget review, TomorrowNow included references to a " D e v e l o p e r License" for Oracle (meaning " D e v e l o p m e n t License," but often referred to as " d e v e l o p e r " or " d e v e l o p e r ' s " license).
Id. This was forwarded to Paul Bigos in S A P ' s procurement department to determine i f the

23 24 25 26 27 28

projected IT expenditures were accurate. Id. SAP reasonably believes that it was not specifically a w a r e t h a t T o m o r r o w N o w a l r e a d y p o s s e s s e d , a n d w a s u s i n g , O r a c l e d a t a b a s e s e r v e r s o f t w a r e on T o m o r r o w N o w ' s s y s t e m s o r t h a t T o m o r r o w N o w was c u r r e n t l y r e l y i n g o n a d e v e l o p e r ' s l i c e n s e to use that software a t this time. In October 2005, TomorrowNow employees made inquiries to SAP employees regarding purchasing a license for Oracle database server software and whether or not SAP had a license -9SAP O R A C L E D A T A B A S E R U L E 30(b)(6) S U P P L E M E N T A L WRITTEN R E S P O N S E Case No. 07-CY-1658 PJH ( E D L )

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document657-97

Filed03/03/10 Page5 of 9

that would apply to TomorrowNow. Specifically, TomorrowNow contacted SAP employees to 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13

determine the proper channel and process for purchasing a license for "Oracle Standard Edition for a 4 CPU machine running AIX and a 4 CPU machine running Windows." TN-OR00866631. In addition, TomorrowNow asked " i f TomorrowNow would fall under some enterprise license agreement established by Oracle with SAP." Id; SAP-OR00846609. A n SAP employee r e s p o n d e d t o the s e c o n d i n q u i r y a n d p r o v i d e d a p r i c e q u o t e f r o m a t h i r d p a r t y v e n d o r . T h e s e communications are detailed in Defendants' response to Interrogatory N o . 5 o f Defendant T o m o r r o w N o w I n c . ' s Sixth Amended and Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' Third Set o f Interrogatories and Defendants SAP A G and SAP America, Inc. ' s Fifth Amended and Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' Second Set o f Interrogatories ("Interrogatory 5"). SAP has been unable to locate any additional documents o r information separate and apart from the documents and information relied upon to answer Interrogatory 5 related to these October 2005 communications and Mr. Schraeder's 30(b)(6) testimony regarding this time period. Additionally, SAP reasonably believes that there was no investigation during this t i m e f r a m e into w h e t h e r o r not T o m o r r o w N o w h a d o r u s e d O r a c l e d a t a b a s e s e r v e r s o f t w a r e , n o r an investigation into the license agreement under which TomorrowNow would have used such database server software. Likewise, SAP is not reasonably aware o f any software inventory being conducted by SAP in this time period that included Oracle database server software which T o m o r r o w N o w m a y h a v e had o n T o m o r r o w N o w ' s n e t w o r k . a.

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

W h a t actions, i f any, did SAP t h e n t a k e to investigate w h e t h e r TN h a d a d e q u a t e licenses f o r t h e c o p i e s ? W h a t d i d S A P l e a r n f r o m t h o s e actions?

Additionally, SAP reasonably believes that there was no investigation during this t i m e f r a m e i n t o w h e t h e r o r n o t T o m o r r o w N o w h a d o r used O r a c l e d a t a b a s e s e r v e r s o f t w a r e , n o r an investigation into the license agreement under which TomorrowNow would have used such database server software. Likewise, SAP is not reasonably aware o f any software inventory being conducted by SAP in this time period that included Oracle database server software which T o m o r r o w N o w may h a v e h a d o n T o m o r r o w N o w ' s n e t w o r k .
SAP ORACLE DATABASE RULE 30(b)(6) S U P P L E M E N T A L WRITTEN R E S P O N S E Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

-10-

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document657-97

Filed03/03/10 Page6 of 9

1

b.

2

W h a t , i f a n y t h i n g , did SAP do in response to a n y i n t e r n a l investigation (including any communications w i t h O r a c l e o r TN o r directives to TN)?

3 4 5 6 7 8

Additionally, SAP reasonably believes that there was no investigation during this timeframe into whether or not TomorrowNow had or used Oracle database server software, nor an investigation into the license agreement under which TomorrowNow would have used such database server software. Likewise, SAP is not reasonably aware o f any software inventory being conducted by SAP in this time period that included Oracle database server software which TomorrowNow may have had on TomorrowNow's network.

9
10

G.

11

W h a t actions, i f any, did SAP t a k e to investigate w h e t h e r TN a l r e a d y h a d copies o f O r a c l e d a t a b a s e software on its systems a f t e r receiving T N ' s 2006 requests f o r a s t a n d a r d e d i t i o n license? W h o p e r f o r m e d t h o s e a c t i o n s ? W h e n d i d t h e y o c c u r ? W h a t did S A P l e a r n f r o m those actions?
During the 2006 time period, SAP only had the same general understanding that

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

installations o f database server software would likely be used by TomorrowNow as a component o f the PeopleSoft enterprise software. Based on communications between TomorrowNow and SAP employees, SAP reasonably understood that TomorrowNow was seeking a license for Oracle database server software, but had no specific understanding that TomorrowNow had, or had been using, such Oracle database server software. In January 2006, a TomorrowNow employee contacted SAP employees to follow up on the October requests. Specifically, he asked about (1) the process for requesting an Oracle standard edition license and (2) " i f TomorrowNow would fall under some enterprise license agreement established by Oracle with SAP?" SAP-OR00842808-11. The details o f this communication are provided in Defendants' current response to Interrogatory 5. After an extensive review, SAP has been unable to locate any additional documents or provide further information separate and apart from the documents and information relied upon to answer Interrogatory 5 related to the January 2006 communications. In March 2006, there was a follow-up communication from a TomorrowNow employee to a SAP employee regarding the January 2006 communication referenced above. SAPOR00847764-67. TomorrowNow employees also separately contacted SAP employees
-11S A P O R A C L E D A T A B A S E RULE 3 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) S U P P L E M E N T A L WRITTEN R E S P O N S E CaseNo.07-CY-1658PJH(EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document657-97

Filed03/03/10 Page7 of 9

requesting information relating to the procurement o f Oracle database software server licenses. 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 TN-ORO 1040841-46. In response, SAP provided quotes for the requested products. TNOR01029489-93 (Neither Paul Bigos nor Frederick Voss recall whether o r not a conversation occurred with George Lester as indicated in this March 31, 2006 email, and therefore neither recall the substance o f that communication). The details o f these communications are provided in Defendants' current response to Interrogatory 5. After an extensive review, SAP has been unable to locate any additional documents or information separate and apart from the documents and information relied upon to answer Interrogatory 5 related to the March 2006 communications. In September 2006, SAP employee Mark Hulett informed Reiner Schmitt, also an SAP employee, that Greg Nelson had made an inquiry regarding software licensing and management.
See, e.g., SAP-OR00788614-16. In response to Mr. Schmitt's questions regarding what was

needed, Mr. Nelson stated "what is the c o m p l e t e ' library' o f software I can r e q u e s t through SAP and what is the cost?" Id. Mr. Nelson included in his list "Database (Oracle/DB2/SQL Server, etc)." Id. The details o f this communication are provided in Defendants' current response to Interrogatory 5. Mr. N e l s o n ' s request was subsequently forwarded directly to employees in S A P ' s procurement department. SAP-OR00788673. After an extensive effort, SAP has been unable to locate any additional documents or information separate and apart from the documents and information cited above and those relied upon to answer Interrogatory 5 related to the September 2006 communications. SAP also is not reasonably aware o f further non-privileged discussions related specifically to TomorrowNow's obtaining a license for Oracle database products prior to March 22, 2007 other than as discussed above and in Interrogatory 5. Moreover, Chris Faye has no recollection o f any communications with Greg Nelson regarding the topic o f Oracle database software licensing. Additionally, SAP reasonably believes there was no investigation during this timeframe into whether or not TomorrowNow had or used Oracle database server software, nor an investigation into the license agreement under which TomorrowNow would have used such database server software. Likewise, SAP is not reasonably aware o f any software inventory being conducted in this time period that included Oracle database server software which TomorrowNow -12S A P O R A C L E D A T A B A S E RULE 3 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) S U P P L E M E N T A L W R I T f E N RESPONSE Case No. 07-CY-1658 P J H ( E D L )

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document657-97

Filed03/03/10 Page8 of 9

1 2
3

m a y h a v e h a d o n T o m o r r o w N o w ' s network. a.

W h a t a c t i o n s , i f a n y , d i d S A P t h e n t a k e to i n v e s t i g a t e w h e t h e r T N h a d a d e q u a t e licenses f o r t h e c o p i e s ? W h a t d i d S A P l e a r n f r o m t h o s e actions?

4
5

A d d i t i o n a l l y , S A P r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s t h e r e w a s no i n v e s t i g a t i o n d u r i n g t h i s t i m e f r a m e i n t o w h e t h e r o r n o t T o m o r r o w N o w h a d o r u s e d O r a c l e d a t a b a s e s e r v e r s o f t w a r e , n o r an investigation into the license agreement u n d e r which T o m o r r o w N o w w o u l d h a v e used such d a t a b a s e s e r v e r software. Likewise, S A P is not reasonably a w a r e o f a n y software inventory b e i n g c o n d u c t e d in this t i m e p e r i o d t h a t included Oracle database s e r v e r s o f t w a r e w h i c h T o m o r r o w N o w m a y h a v e h a d o n T o m o r r o w N o w ' s network.

6

7

8
9
10 11 12 13

b.

W h a t , i f a n y t h i n g , did SAP do in r e s p o n s e to a n y i n t e r n a l investigation ( i n c l u d i n g a n y c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h O r a c l e o r T N o r directives to TN)?

A d d i t i o n a l l y , S A P r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s t h e r e w a s no i n v e s t i g a t i o n d u r i n g t h i s t i m e f r a m e i n t o w h e t h e r o r n o t T o m o r r o w N o w h a d o r u s e d O r a c l e d a t a b a s e s e r v e r s o f t w a r e , n o r an investigation into t h e l i c e n s e a g r e e m e n t u n d e r which T o m o r r o w N o w w o u l d have used s u c h d a t a b a s e s e r v e r software. Likewise, S A P is not reasonably a w a r e o f a n y software inventory b e i n g c o n d u c t e d in this t i m e p e r i o d that included Oracle database s e r v e r s o f t w a r e w h i c h T o m o r r o w N o w m a y have h a d o n T o m o r r o w N o w ' s network. U n d e r R u l e 3 3 ( d ) , t h i s W r i t t e n R e s p o n s e i n c o r p o r a t e s b y r e f e r e n c e , as i f fully s e t forth herein, all d o c u m e n t s , d i s c o v e r y responses and t e s t i m o n y cited herein.

14
15
16

17

18
19

20 21 22 23 By: / s / S c o t t W. C o w a n S c o t t W. C o w a n C o u n s e l for D e f e n d a n t s S A P A G , S A P A M E R I C A , INC., a n d T O M O R R O W N O W , INC. Dated: F e b r u a r y 1, 2010. JONES DAY

24
25

26
27

28
-13SAP ORACLE DATABASE RULE 30(b)(6) S U P P L E M E N T A L WRITTEN R E S P O N S E Case No. 07-CY-1658 P l H (EDL)

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document657-97

Filed03/03/10 Page9 of 9

PROOF O F S E R V I C E

2
3

I, Grace A. Wayte, declare:

I am a citizen o f the United States and employed in San Francisco County, California. I
am over the age o f eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business

4
5 6

address is 555 California Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, California 94104. On February 1, 2 0 1 0 , I s e r v e d a c o p y o f t h e attached document(s): D E F E N D A N T S A P A G AND S A P A M E R I C A , I N C . ' S S U P P L E M E N T A L W R I T T E N R E S P O N S E T O O R A C L E D A T A B A S E R U L E 30(B)(6) T E S T I M O N Y

7

8
9
10 11 12

D

by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. by p l a c i n g t h e d o c u m e n t ( s ) l i s t e d a b o v e i n a s e a l e d e n v e l o p e a n d c a u s i n g s u c h envelope to be hand delivered to the office o f the addressee on the date specified above. b y t r a n s m i t t i n g v i a e-mail o r e l e c t r o n i c t r a n s m i s s i o n t h e d o c u m e n t ( s ) listed a b o v e to the person(s) at the e-mail addressees) set forth below.
G(~offrey M. Howard, Esq. H o l l y H o u s e , Esq. Zachary 1. Alinder, Esq. Bree Hann, Esq. BINGHAM McCUTCHEN L L P Three Embarcadero Center S a n Francisco, C A 94111-4067

13
14
15

16 17 18 19 20 21

geoff. howard@bingham. com holly. [e-mail] zachary. alinder@bingham. com bree. hann@bingham. com
Executed on February 1, 2010, at San Francisco, California.

22
23

BY:~o.ll~
. Grace A. Wayte

24

25
26 27

28
PROOF OF SERVICE Case No. 07-CV-1658 P1H