Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 757

RESPONSE in Support re 730 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendants' Administrative Motion to Permit Defendants to File Under Seal Plaintiffs' Document in Support of Defendants' Motions in Limine filed byOracle EMEA Limited, Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc., Siebel Systems, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Howard, Geoffrey) (Filed on 8/12/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP DONN P. PICKETT (SBN 72257) GEOFFREY M. HOWARD (SBN 157468) HOLLY A. HOUSE (SBN 136045) ZACHARY J. ALINDER (SBN 209009) BREE HANN (SBN 215695) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 Telephone: (415) 393-2000 Facsimile: (415) 393-2286 donn.pickett@bingham.com geoff.howard@bingham.com holly.house@bingham.com zachary.alinder@bingham.com bree.hann@bingham.com BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 dboies@bsfllp.com STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (SBN 144177) 1999 Harrison St., Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 874-1000 sholtzman@bsfllp.com DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) JENNIFER GLOSS (SBN 154227) 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 Telephone: 650.506.4846 Facsimile: 650.506.7114 dorian.daley@oracle.com jennifer.gloss@oracle.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ORACLE USA, INC., et al., v. Plaintiffs, Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO PERMIT DEFENDANTS TO FILE UNDER SEAL PLAINTIFFS' DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE SAP AG, et al., Defendants. Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE ISO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO PERMIT DEFENDANTS TO FILE UNDER SEAL PLAINTIFFS' DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE 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 I. INTRODUCTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED Defendants SAP AG, SAP America, Inc., and TomorrowNow, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") filed an Administrative Motion to Seal (D.I. 730) and accompanying Declaration (D.I. 730-1), Stipulation (D.I. 730-2) and Proposed Order (D.I. 730-3) on August 5, 2010. Defendants' filings moved to seal portions of Exhibit K to the Declaration of Jason McDonell in Support of Defendants' Motions in Limine ("McDonell Declaration"). Under Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, and this Court's Standing Order For Cases Involving Sealed or Confidential Documents, Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, Oracle EMEA Limited, and Siebel Systems, Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs" or "Oracle") file this Response, and the accompanying Declaration of Jennifer Gloss in Support of Defendants' Administrative Motion to Seal ("Gloss Declaration" or "Gloss Decl."), which establishes that good cause exists to support a narrowly tailored order authorizing the sealing of Exhibit K to the McDonell Declaration at 4:14, 4:16, 7:22-7:28, 8:3-8:5, 8:15-8:16 and 8:22-8:23. II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO SUPPORT FILING THE REQUESTED INFORMATION UNDER SEAL Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides broad discretion for a trial court to permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection of "a trade secret or other confidential . . . commercial information." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In particular, when the request for sealing concerns discovery documents attached to a nondispositive motion, a showing of good cause to seal the documents is sufficient to justify protection under Rule 26(c). Navarro v. Eskanos & Adler, Case No. C-06 02231 WHA(EDL), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24864, at *7 (March 22, 2007) (citing Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)). To make such a showing, the party seeking protection from disclosure under the rule must demonstrate that public disclosure of such information would create a risk of significant competitive injury and particularized harm or prejudice. See Phillips v. General Motors Corp. 307 F. 3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth the standard of good cause on a motion to seal). 1 Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE ISO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO PERMIT DEFENDANTS TO FILE UNDER SEAL PLAINTIFFS' DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE 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 Oracle has established good cause to permit filing of specific portions of Exhibit K to the McDonell Declaration under seal through the Gloss Declaration, as required under Local Rule 79-5(d). The Gloss Declaration establishes both that Oracle has considered and treated the information contained in Exhibit K to the McDonell Declaration as confidential and proprietary, and that public disclosure of such information would create a risk of significant competitive injury and particularized harm and prejudice to Oracle. Gloss Decl., 4-5. In addition, Oracle has taken steps to ensure that the information contained in Exhibit K to the McDonell Declaration remains confidential in this litigation. Gloss Decl., 6. Further, Oracle has narrowly tailored its request by only requesting sealing of the specific portions of Exhibit K to the McDonell Declaration that contain the most commercially sensitive, private and confidential information. Gloss Decl., 7. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Oracle respectfully requests that the Court file under seal portions of Exhibit K to the McDonell Declaration at 4:14, 4:16, 7:22-7:28, 8:3-8:5, 8:158:16 and 8:22-8:23. DATED: August 12, 2010 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP By: /s/ Geoffrey M. Howard Geoffrey M. Howard Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, Oracle EMEA Limited, and Siebel Systems, Inc. 2 Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE ISO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO PERMIT DEFENDANTS TO FILE UNDER SEAL PLAINTIFFS' DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?