Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 791

Defendants' Oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine filed by SAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. Motion Hearing set for 9/30/2010 02:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 8/19/2010) Modified on 8/20/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF).

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 791 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

Robert A. Mittelstaedt (SBN 060359) Jason McDonell (SBN 115084) Elaine Wallace (SBN 197882) JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Tharan Gregory Lanier (SBN 138784) Jane L. Froyd (SBN 220776) JONES DAY 1755 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Scott W. Cowan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Joshua L. Fuchs (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) JONES DAY 717 Texas, Suite 3300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants SAP AG, SAP AMERICA, INC., and TOMORROWNOW, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ORACLE USA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAP AG, et al., Defendants. Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL) [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE Case No. 07-CV-1658 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

Having considered Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine (D.I. 737), the supporting declaration of Thomas S. Hixson (D.I. 738), and exhibits attached thereto, which were filed with the Court on August 5, 2010, and having considered Defendants' Oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine, the supporting declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier, and exhibits attached thereto, which were filed with the Court on August 19, 2010: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defense is:

Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 1: Implied But Unpled Advice of Counsel

GRANTED or, DENIED

2.

Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 2: Selective Attorney-Client Communications is:

GRANTED or, DENIED

3.

Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 3: Customer Statements in At-Risk Reports is:

GRANTED or, DENIED

-1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE Case No. 07-CV-1658 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

4.

Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 4: Evidence of Settlement Discussions is:

GRANTED or, DENIED

5.

Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 5: Evidence Not in Interrogatory Responses is:

GRANTED or, DENIED

6.

Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 6: Hearsay Concerning Lockheed Martin is:

GRANTED or, DENIED

7.

Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 7: Evidence of Other Litigation is:

GRANTED or, DENIED

8.

Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 8: Untimely Deposition Designations is:

GRANTED or, -2[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE Case No. 07-CV-1658 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

DENIED

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ________________________

By: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton United States District Court Judge

-3-

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL))