Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 790

Memorandum in Opposition re 728 MOTION in Limine 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 8/19/2010)

Download PDF
Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al Doc. 790 Att. 1 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., No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) v. Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE Date: Time: Place: Judge: September 30, 2010 2:30 pm Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton SAP AG, et al., Defendants. [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE, CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) Dockets.Justia.com 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 On September 30, 2010, the Court held a hearing on Defendants' Motions in Limine. Having reviewed the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments, evidence and relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES IN PART Defendants' motions as follows: I. DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1: GOODWILL Defendants' motion to preclude Plaintiffs from offering any evidence and argument on alleged harm to Plaintiffs' goodwill is DENIED. Plaintiffs will not, however, be allowed to quantify or seek damages from Defendants' after-the fact impact on Oracle's goodwill. II. DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: PRECLUDED LOST PROFITS Defendants' motion to preclude Plaintiffs from offering "cross-sell" and "up-sell" evidence is DENIED. III. DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3: NON-PARTY LOST PROFITS Defendants' motion to preclude Plaintiffs from offering evidence and argument in support of a claim for lost profits damages calculated for the Oracle organization as a whole is rendered moot by the Court's Order re Motions for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 762), and on that basis is DENIED. IV. DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4: THE SOMMER REPORT Defendants' motion to preclude Plaintiffs from offering any rebuttal testimony regarding the Expert Report of Brian S. Sommer is DENIED. V. DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 Defendants' motion to preclude Plaintiffs from offering testimony from various employee witnesses and a contractor is DENIED. VI. DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6: DEFENDANTS' USE OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Defendants' motion to preclude Plaintiffs from offering any deposition testimony where Defendants' witnesses invoke the attorney-client privilege in response to a question is DENIED. [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE, CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) 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 VII. DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7: DOJ AND FBI INVESTIGATIONS 1. Defendants' motion to preclude the parties from offering evidence of the DOJ's and FBI's current investigation into Oracle Corporation is GRANTED. 2. Defendants' motion to preclude the parties from offering evidence of the DOJ's and FBI's current investigation into Defendants related to the facts and circumstances of this case is: a. GRANTED IN PART, as to affirmative case-in-chief evidence, but DENIED IN PART such that Oracle shall be permitted to introduce evidence of the DOJ's and FBI's current investigation into Defendants to rebut any evidence or argument by Defendants as to the alleged good faith or responsible nature of Defendants' post-litigation actions; or b. GRANTED, such that neither party may introduce any evidence of any DOJ or FBI investigation or action with respect to any party. VIII. DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8: RIMINI STREET Defendants' motion to preclude Plaintiffs from offering any evidence concerning Rimini Street's support model is: 1. DENIED; or 2. GRANTED, such neither party may introduce any evidence of Rimini Street's support model. IX. DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9: HYPERION, RETEK AND E-BUSINESS SUITE Defendants' motion to preclude Plaintiffs from offering any evidence and argument regarding the Hyperion, Retek and E-Business Suite product lines is DENIED, except that pursuant to the parties' June 11, 2009 stipulation (Dkt. 325), Plaintiffs may not assert liability or seek damages for Defendants' copying or use of these products. 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE, CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) 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 X. DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10: SAP/TN Defendants' motion to preclude Plaintiffs from offering evidence referring to "SAP/TN" is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _______________, 2010 Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton United States District Court Judge 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE, CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

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?