Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 782

Declaration of Scott W. Cowan in Support of 780 MOTION Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Partially Exclude Testimony of Kevin Mandia and Daniel Levy filed bySAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Related document(s) 780 ) (Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 8/19/2010)

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 782 Att. 10

EXHIBIT J

Dockets.Justia.com

EDWARD SCREVEN November 30, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 1
UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T COURT NORTHERN D I S T R I C T OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND D I V I S I O N
--000--

ORACLE CORPORATION, a D e l a w a r e c o r p o r a t i o n , ORACLE USA, I N C . , a C o l o r a d o c o r p o r a t i o n , a n d ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a California corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. SAP AG, a G e r m a n c o r p o r a t i o n , SAP AG AMERICA, I N C . , a Delaware corporation, TOMORROWNOW I N C . , a T e x a s c o r p o r a t i o n , a n d DOES 1 - 5 0 , inclusive, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

)No. 07-CV-1658
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

(PJH)

------------------)

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF EDWARD SCREVEN

November 30, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

REPORTED BY: DELAINE HALL, CSR 1 0 1 6 4

JOB 1 - 4 2 4 6 0 4

Merrill Legal Solutions (800 ) 869-9132
8c7222a7 -b472-4105-b164-913ca48752ae

EDWARD SCREVEN November 30, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 15

Text Removed - Not Relevant to Motion

02:08:44 02:08:46 02:08:50 02:08:52

17

Q.

But you've never actually written any

18
19

PeopleSoft code? A. programs. No, I have never written any PeopleSoft

20

Text Removed - Not Relevant to Motion

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]
8e 7222a 7-b4 72-41 05-b164-913ea487 52ae

EDWARD SCREVEN November 30, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 16

Text Removed - Not Relevant to Motion

02:10:07 02:10:10 02:10:12 02:10:15 02:10:19 02:10:23 02:10:28

19 20
21

;i

Q. Edwards.

SO l e t me a s k y o u t h e s a m e q u e s t i o n s a b o u t J D Have you ever worked on developing any of the

~

JD Edwards p r o d u c t s d i r e c t l y ?

22 23 24 25

A.

The answer i s the same.

So, no,

I've never
~
~

d i r e c t l y w r i t t e n any JD Edwards program,

right, but I've

,

been i n d i s c u s s i o n s and many times about t h e way JD Edwards programs should or could take advantage of

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]
8c7222a7-b472-4105-b164-913ca48752ae

EDWARD SCREVEN November 30, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 17
02:10:31 02:10:36 02:10:38 02:10:44 02:10:46 02:10:47 02:10:51 02:10:54 02:10:54 02:10:57 02: 11: 00 02:11:05 02:11:10 02: 11: 13 02:11:16 02:11:20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9

I
I
~

e x i s t i n g Oracle technologies; the way t h a t they could be integrated with other Oracle applications, you know; the

w a y t h a t we s h o u l d - - we s h o u l d m o d i f y t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s going forward to provide a better experience for customers. Q. And t h e same q u e s t i o n s f o r S i e b e l . Have you

ever been involved on developing any of the Siebel products? A. And t h e answer would be t h e same. So, no,

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

I've never directly written any - - any Siebel program, although many times have been involved with and led d i s c u s s i o n s about how S i e b e l can o r s h o u l d be t a k i n g advantage of existing Oracle technologies. How i t c o u l d

or should be integrated with other Oracle applications, and, y o u k n o w , h o w we c a n t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f w h a t ' s i n

Siebel to have a better experience for the end customer.

Text Removed - Not Relevant to Motion

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]
8 c 7 2 2 2 a 7 -b472-41 0 5 - b 1 6 4 - 9 1 3 c a 4 8 7 5 2 a e

EDWARD SCREVEN November 30, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 20

Text Removed - Not Relevant to Motion

02:14:56 02:15:00 02:15:03 02:15:04 02:15:04 02:15:07 02:15:07

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q.

And you mentioned t h a t you had m u l t i p l e phone

conversations with them; i s that correct? MR. HOWARD: testimony. THE WITNESS: them. MR. WILKES
Q.

Objection; misstates the

I've had one phone c a l l with

And a b o u t how l o n g , t h e l e n g t h

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]
8 c 7 2 2 2 a 7 -b472-41 0 5 - b 1 6 4 - 9 1 3 c a 4 8 7 5 2 a e

EDWARD SCREVEN November 30, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 21
02:15:10 02:15:12 02:15:15 02:15:21 02:15:24 02:15:25 02:15:28 02:15:31 02:15:34 1 2 3 4 5
6
7

of time, was t h a t phone c a l l ? A. Actually don't really remember. I t was not

short, but i t wasn't -- i t wasn't a marathon either. Q. A. Q. A. About an hour, half an hour? Could have been either one of those. But not longer than an hour? Probably not, but, you know, I would say less I don't

8 9

than two hours.

Probably a t l e a s t 30 minutes.

r e a l l y know more t h a n t h a t , t h o u g h .

Text Removed - Not Relevant to Motion

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]
8c7222a7-b472-4105-b164-913ca48752ae

EDWARD SCREVEN November 30, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 33

Text Removed - Not Relevant to Motion

02:30:35 02:30:39 02:30:44 02:30:46 02:30:47 02:30:49 02:30:50 02:30:51

18 19 20
21

Q.

Did you look a t any PeopleSoft newer versions

to confirm your statement that i t contains the code from the older version? MR. HOWARD: Objection; overbroad. You

22 23 24 25

meaning during the phone conversation? MR. WILKES: conversation. THE WITNESS: No. During the phone Yes. During the phone
~
~

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]
8c7222a7-b472-4105-b164-913ca48752ae

EDWARD SCREVEN November 30, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
P a g e 34
02:30:52 02:30:56 02:30:57 02:31:00 02:31:03 02:31:09 02:31:14 02:31:17 02:31:18 02:31:21 02:31:25 02:31:29 02:31:32 02:31:35 02:31:38 02:31:39 02:31:43 02:31:46 02:31:47 02:31:49 02:31:51 02:31:53 02:31:56 02:32:00 02:32:04 1 2 3 4 5
6

conversation, I did not look at any PeopleSoft code. MR. WILKES Q. Did you look a t any PeopleSoft

code to answer his question at any time? A. Q. No. So you j u s t gave him your h i g h - l e v e l

understanding of generally what PeopleSoft newer v e r s i o n s and o l d e r v e r s i o n s , how they r e l a t e ; i s t h a t correct? A. I g a v e h i m my u n d e r s t a n d i n g b a s e d o n my

7 8 9 10
11

experience a t Oracle d e a l i n g with bugs and new product versions and, you know, releases of PeopleSoft and bugs

12
13

and new product v e r s i o n s o f S i e b e l and bugs and new p r o d u c t v e r s i o n s o f JD Edwards.

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

Q.

But you d i d n ' t do anything to go and

determine whether or not the versions and the modules t h a t he was s p e c i f i c a l l y t a l k i n g about had the same code in the newer versions as they did in the old version, correct? MR. HOWARD: ambiguous. THE W I T N E S S : I did not consult PeopleSoft Objection; overbroad, vague and

code specifically to answer his questions. MR. WILKES Q. And same t h i n g f o r JD Edwards.

Did you c o n s u l t JD Edwards code t o answer h i s q u e s t i o n s ? A. I d i d not c o n s u l t JD Edwards code s p e c i f i c a l l y

Merrill Legal Solutions
[phone]
8c7222a7-b472-4105-b164-913ca48752ae

EDWARD SCREVEN November 30, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 35
02:32:07 02:32:09 02:32:12 02:32:16 02:32:19 02:32:23 02:32:23 02:32:29 02:32:31 02:32:34 02:32:34 02:32:35 02:32:38 02: 32: 42 02:32:43 02:32:46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11

to answer his questions. Q. In fact, d i d you look a t any ESUs t o

d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a n e w ESU h a s t h e s a m e o r s i m i l a r c o d e a s a n o l d ESU? A. questions. Q. S a m e t h i n g f o r SAR. D i d y o u l o o k a t a n y SARs I d i d n o t c o n s u l t any ESUs t o answer h i s

in order to answer his question? A. questions. Q. And f o r S i e b e l t o o l s , d i d you look a t any I d i d n o t c o n s u l t a n y SARs t o a n s w e r h i s

12
13

version of Siebel tools to determine whether a newer version of Siebel has the same code as an older version of Siebel? A. I did not examine any Siebel code to answer

14 15 16

his questions.

Text Removed - Not Relevant to Motion

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]
8 c 7 2 2 2 a 7 -b472-41 0 5 - b 1 6 4 - 9 1 3 c a 4 8 7 5 2 a e

EDWARD SCREVEN November 30, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
P a g e 67

Text Removed - Not Relevant to Motion

03:22:37 03:22:40 03:22:43 03:22:48 03:22:51 03:22:52 03:22:54 03:22:56 03:22:59 03:23:00 03:23:04 03:23:04 03:23:05 03:23:09

12
13

Q.

And as p a r t of t h a t - - we've a l r e a d y kind of

~

been over t h i s , but j u s t so i t ' s c l e a r , you d i d n ' t actually look at any versions of any software in your discussions with Mr. Mandia, correct? MR. HOWARD: overbroad. THE WITNESS: I did not look at versions of Objection; asked and answered,

~ ,

14 15 16
17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

t h e s e p r o d u c t s d u r i n g my d i s c u s s i o n w i t h M r . M a n d i a . MR. WILKES Q. Did you look a t them

afterwards t o confirm t h a t what you t o l d Mr. Mandia was true? A. Q. No. Did you do anything to independently verify

what you were t e l l i n g Mr. Mandia was t r u e ?

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]
8c7222a7 -b472-4105-b164-913ca48752ae

EDWARD SCREVEN November 30, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
P a g e 68
03:23:11 03:23:12 03:23:13
1

MR. HOWARD: ambiguous. THE WITNESS:

Objection; overbroad.

Vague and

2

3

No.

Text Removed - Not Relevant to Motion

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]
8e 7222a 7-b4 72-41 05-b164-913ea487 52ae

EDWARD SCREVEN November 30, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

(

03:36:24 03:36:26 03:36:29 03:36:31 03:36:32 03:36:34 03:36:37 03:36:46 03:36:49 03:36:51 03:36:53 03:36:55

1

A.
Q.

No.

2

Are you aware of anyone in your reporting

3
4

l i n e who h a s t a l k e d t o M r . M a n d i a ?

A.
Q.

No.

5

Are you aware of anyone in your reporting

6
7 8 9

line th 9 t ' s talked to any of the Oracle experts?

A.

No.

MR. WILKES:

We'll reserve any further

questions at this point, so I'm done. MR. HOWARD: Okay. You're all done. Going off the

10
11

VIDEO OPERATOR: record.

We're done.

12

T h e t i m e now i s 3 : 3 5 p . m . (Whereupon, the deposition was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.)
--000--

13

14
15 16 17 18 19

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing i s true and correct. Subscribed at day of

.Relw\O\Y/ Qr~
J4'rI~

20
21
····22·

23 24

Signature of Witness

25

74
Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER I, DELAINE HALL, a C e r t i f i e d S h o r t h a n d

Reporter, hereby certify that the witness in the f o r e g o i n g d e p o s i t i o n w a s b y me d u l y s w o r n t o t e l l t h e truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the

within-entitled cause; That s a i d d e p o s i t i o n was taken down i n shorthand by me, a d i s i n t e r e s t e d person, a t the time and place therein stated, and that the testimony of the said witness was t h e r e a f t e r reduced t o typewriting, by c o m p u t e r , u n d e r my d i r e c t i o n a n d s u p e r v i s i o n ; That before completion of the deposition, review of the transcript

[>U

was [ ] was not requested.

I f requested, any changes made by the deponent (and provided to the reporter) during the period allowed are appended hereto. I f u r t h e r c e r t i f y t h a t I am n o t o f c o u n s e l o r attorney for either or any of the parties to the said d e p o s i t i o n , nor i n any way i n t e r e s t e d i n the event of t h i s c a u s e , a n d t h a t I am n o t r e l a t e d t o a n y o f t h e parties thereto. DATED:

DELAINE HALL, CSR N o . 1 0 1 6 4