Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 793

Declaration of Chad Russell in Support of 790 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' Motions in Limine filed byOracle EMEA Limited, Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc., Siebel Systems, 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, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z, # 27 Exhibit AA, # 28 Exhibit BB, # 29 Exhibit CC, # 30 Exhibit DD, # 31 Exhibit EE, # 32 Exhibit FF, # 33 Exhibit GG, # 34 Exhibit HH, # 35 Exhibit II, # 36 Exhibit JJ, # 37 Exhibit KK, # 38 Exhibit LL, # 39 Exhibit MM, # 40 Exhibit NN, # 41 Exhibit OO, # 42 Exhibit PP, # 43 Exhibit QQ, # 44 Exhibit RR, # 45 Exhibit SS, # 46 Exhibit TT)(Related document(s) 790 ) (Howard, Geoffrey) (Filed on 8/19/2010)

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 793 Att. 31

EXHIBIT EE
Dockets.Justia.com

ANDREW NELSON April 29, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page 265
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ORACLE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, ORACLE USA, INC., a Colorado corporation, and ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a California corporation, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) vs. ) ) SAP AG, a German corporation, ) SAP AMERICA, INC., a Delaware ) corporation, TOMORROWNOW, INC.,) a Texas corporation, and DOES ) 1-50, inclusive, ) Defendants. )

CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 (MJJ)

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY ORAL VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION ANDREW NELSON VOLUME 2 APRIL 29, 2009

ORAL VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ANDREW NELSON, produced as a witness at the instance of the Plaintiffs and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on the 29th day of April, 2009, from 7:58 a.m. to 5:40 p.m., before Dana Richardson, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas, reported by computerized stenotype machine at the Hilton Hotel, 801 University Drive East, College Station, Texas, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on the record or attached hereto. Job No. 1603-91104

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

ANDREW NELSON April 29, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 354
11:29:02 11:29:04 11:29:09 11:29:10 11:29:14 11:29:19 11:29:24 11:29:27 11:29:31 11:29:35 11:29:39 11:29:42 11:29:45 11:29:47 11:29:49 11:29:52 11:29:56 11:30:01 11:30:06 11:30:09 11:30:12 11:30:15 11:30:16 11:30:20 11:30:20 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 356
11:32:15 11:32:19 11:32:22 11:32:27 11:32:33 11:32:37 11:32:42

Q. All right. And did you have an understanding that in the general way that you've described it, same servers would stay at the Managed Network Solutions facility and TomorrowNow would have access to them, that that was a solution that was acceptable to SAP? MR. FUCHS: Object to the extent that that question invades the attorney-client privilege. Mr. Nelson, to the extent you can answer that question from a business or technical perspective apart from seeking legal advice from anyone at SAP and receiving legal advice -- as -- as an example to that, would this be legal was, would this not be legal, et cetera -- then I instruct you not to answer if -- if answering that question is going to reveal legal advice. If it is purely business and technical discussion, then you can answer the question. A. It was an alternative option we were considering. Q. (By Mr. Howard) And did you understand that it was acceptable to SAP?

11:32:48 11:32:51 11:32:53 11:32:55 11:32:59 11:33:04 11:33:09 11:33:14 11:33:18 11:33:30 11:33:32 11:33:38 11:33:42 11:33:45 11:33:48 11:33:55 11:33:59 11:34:02

Page 355
11:30:23 11:30:29 11:30:33 11:30:33 11:30:39 11:30:42 11:30:48 11:30:51 11:31:00 11:31:08 11:31:13 11:31:18 11:31:25 11:31:28 11:31:31 11:31:33 11:31:37 11:31:38 11:31:38 11:31:44 11:31:48 11:31:57 11:32:03 11:32:09 11:32:12 1 2 3

Page 357
11:34:07 11:34:13 11:34:22 11:34:26 11:34:33 11:34:49 11:34:51 11:34:54 11:35:14 11:35:17 11:35:23 11:35:34 11:35:37 11:35:39 11:35:44 11:35:47 11:35:52 11:35:57 11:36:03 11:36:09 11:36:14 11:36:19 11:36:24 11:36:27 11:36:31

MR. FUCHS: Same objection, same instruction. A. Yes, it was my understanding that it would be acceptable.

rowNow

24 (Pages 354 to 357) Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]