Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 943

OBJECTIONS to Defendants' Deposition Designations by Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc., Siebel Systems, Inc.. (Alinder, Zachary) (Filed on 10/25/2010)

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 943

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: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (SBN 144177) FRED NORTON (SBN 224725) 1999 Harrison St., Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) JENNIFER GLOSS (SBN 154227) 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] 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) ORACLE'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS Date: Time: Place: Judge: November 1, 2010 8:30 a.m. Courtroom 3 Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton

SAP AG, et al., Defendants.

1

Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

ORACLE'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS

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

Pursuant to the Final Pretrial Order (Dkt. No. 914), Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, and Siebel Systems, Inc. (collectively, "Oracle") submit their Objections to Defendants' Deposition Designations, attached as Exhibit A. Based on the Court's Final Pretrial Order and guidance at the September 30th Pretrial Conference, Oracle understands the Court to have requested, at this time, the filing of citations to disputed deposition designations, but not the public filing of objected-to underlying testimony. To avoid the public filing of testimony, for which Oracle maintains its evidentiary objections, as well as to protect the confidentiality designations of third parties implicated by some of the proposed testimony and testimonial objections, the Parties have agreed that Oracle may lodge, rather than file, the underlying deposition testimony. If the Court sustains Oracle's objections to the underlying testimony, Oracle will then subsequently file the testimony to preserve the appellate record, as requested by Defendants. To the extent Defendants amend or supplement their current deposition designations, Oracle reserves the right to amend or supplement its objections in response. In addition, Oracle intends, and reserves the right, to file a response to Defendants' objections to Oracle's designations of deposition testimony, as contemplated under the Parties' agreement.

DATED: October 25, 2010

Bingham McCutchen LLP By: /s/ Zachary J. Alinder Zachary J. Alinder Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, and Siebel Systems, Inc.

2

Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

ORACLE'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS

Exhibit A

Testimony

Oracle's Objections Mark Anderson (Travel Centers) -- 6/8/2009 Anderson, Mark [TravelCenters] Calls for legal conclusion. Customer is asked to interpret the terms and conditions of its contract with Oracle objects to the deposition TomorrowNow. testimony at: 127:9 - 127:18; 128:7 - 128:22; 129:3 - 129:17; 103:3 - 130:11; 130:22 - 131:5. Anderson, Mark [TravelCenters] Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 174:13 - 175:1. Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 174:13 - 175:1. FRE 402 - Not Relevant; Plaintiffs' MIL 1. These questions, and the testimony they elicit, relate to whether the customer sought advice of counsel regarding its contract with TomorrowNow. This is completely irrelevant to any issue in this case. To the extent that it is relevant, it violates Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 1. Defendants stated in Court that "[they] do not plan to put in any evidence that evidences advice of counsel." 9/30/10 Hrg Tr. at 8:18 - 8:19. The Court granted Plaintiffs' MIL 1 "to the extent that any witness seeks to testify that he/she relied on advice of counsel with regard to TomorrowNow's operational activities." (Dkt 914). Steven Brazile (Sara Lee) -- 10/14/2009 Brazile, Steven [Sara Lee] FRE 402 - Not Relevant; Plaintiffs' MIL 1. These questions, and the testimony they elicit, relate to Oracle objects to the deposition whether the customer sought advice of counsel testimony at: 68:10 - 69:3. regarding its contract with TomorrowNow. This is irrelevant to any issue in this case. To the extent that it is relevant, it violates Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 1. Defendants stated in Court that "[they] do not plan to put in any evidence that evidences advice of counsel." 9/30/10 Hrg Tr. at 8:18 - 8:19. The Court granted Plaintiffs' MIL 1 "to the extent that any witness seeks to testify that he/she relied on advice of counsel with regard to TomorrowNow's operational activities." (Dkt 914). Tracy Hallenberger (Baker Botts) -- 11/18/2009 Hallenberger, Tracy [Baker Botts] FRE 402 - Not Relevant; Plaintiffs' MIL 1. These questions, and the testimony they elicit, relate to Oracle objects to the deposition whether the customer sought advice of counsel testimony at: 50:21 - 50:25. regarding its contract with TomorrowNow. This is completely irrelevant to any issue in this case. To the extent that it is relevant, it violates Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 1. Defendants stated in Court that "[they] do not plan to put in any evidence that

Ruling

1

Testimony

Oracle's Objections Ruling evidences advice of counsel." 9/30/10 Hrg Tr. at 8:18 - 8:19. The Court granted Plaintiffs' MIL 1 "to the extent that any witness seeks to testify that he/she relied on advice of counsel with regard to TomorrowNow's operational activities." (Dkt 914). Hallenberger, Tracy [Baker Botts] FRE 402 - Not Relevant; Plaintiffs' MIL 1. These questions, and the testimony they elicit, relate to Oracle objects to the deposition whether the customer sought advice of counsel testimony at: 51:8 - 51:16. regarding its contract with TomorrowNow. This is completely irrelevant to any issue in this case. To the extent that it is relevant, it violates Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 1. Defendants stated in Court that "[they] do not plan to put in any evidence that evidences advice of counsel." 9/30/10 Hrg Tr. at 8:18 - 8:19. The Court granted Plaintiffs' MIL 1 "to the extent that any witness seeks to testify that he/she relied on advice of counsel with regard to TomorrowNow's operational activities." (Dkt 914). Hallenberger, Tracy [Baker Botts] FRE 402 - Not Relevant; FRE 602 - Calls For Speculation. The deponent is asked about the Oracle objects to the deposition meaning of a statement made by someone else, to testimony at: 60:16 - 61:1. someone else. This is not relevant and the witness lacks personal knowledge of the matter. Robyn Harrel (Apria Healthcare) -- 9/8/2009 Harrel, Robyn [Apria Healthcare] FRE 403 - Probative value outweighed by prejudice; FRE 802 - Hearsay; FRE 1002 - Requirement of Oracle objects to the deposition Original. The question asks for and the witness testimony at: 29:8 - 30:12. testifies about out of court statements contained in a memo. This is hearsay, as statements in the document are offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is not admissible at trial just because it is provided by a 30(b)(6) witness. See e.g., Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Gray, 2010 WL 3522954, at *7 (S.D. Ind. 2010). Furthermore, the original is required to prove the contents of this writing. In addition, the testimony is unfairly prejudicial as the document was created by the witness/customer for purposes of renegotiating its contract with Oracle (see 25:14-17) ("Q. What was your understanding of why Apria sent this memo to J.D. Edwards? A. As I recall, we -- we wanted to renegotiate the license costs.") Harrel, Robyn [Apria Healthcare] FRE 403 - Probative value outweighed by prejudice; FRE 802 - Hearsay; FRE 1002 - Requirement of Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 30:22 - 31:4; 31:12 Original. The question asks for and the witness testifies about out of court statements contained in a - 32:11.

2

Testimony

Harrel, Robyn [Apria Healthcare] Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 33:3 - 33:17; 33:20 - 34:5.

Harrel, Robyn [Apria Healthcare] Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 58:8 - 58:19.

Oracle's Objections Ruling memo. This is hearsay, as statements in the document are offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is not admissible at trial just because it is provided by a 30(b)(6) witness. See e.g., Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Gray, 2010 WL 3522954, at *7 (S.D. Ind. 2010). Furthermore, the original is required to prove the contents of this writing. In addition, the testimony is unfairly prejudicial as the document was created by the witness/customer for purposes of renegotiating its contract with Oracle (see 25:14-17) ("Q. What was your understanding of why Apria sent this memo to J.D. Edwards? A. As I recall, we -- we wanted to renegotiate the license costs.") FRE 403 - Probative value outweighed by prejudice; FRE 802 - Hearsay; FRE 1002 - Requirement of Original. The question asks for and the witness testifies about out of court statements contained in a memo of complaints. This is hearsay, as statements in the document are offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is not admissible at trial just because it is provided by a 30(b)(6) witness. See e.g., Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Gray, 2010 WL 3522954, at *7 (S.D. Ind. 2010). Furthermore, the original is required to prove the contents of this writing. In addition, the testimony is unfairly prejudicial as the document was created by the witness/customer for purposes of renegotiating its contract with Oracle (see 25:14-17) ("Q. What was your understanding of why Apria sent this memo to J.D. Edwards? A. As I recall, we -- we wanted to renegotiate the license costs.") FRE 402 - Not Relevant; Plaintiffs' MIL 1. These questions, and the testimony they elicit, relate to whether the customer sought advice of counsel regarding its contract with TomorrowNow. This is completely irrelevant to any issue in this case. To the extent that it is relevant, it violates Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 1. Defendants stated in Court that "[they] do not plan to put in any evidence that evidences advice of counsel." 9/30/10 Hrg Tr. at 8:18 - 8:19. The Court granted Plaintiffs' MIL 1 "to the extent that any witness seeks to testify that he/she relied on advice of counsel with regard to TomorrowNow's operational activities." (Dkt 914).

3

Testimony

Oracle's Objections Ruling Daniel Jerome (Electrolux)-- 10/7/2009 Jerome, Daniel [Electrolux] FRE 802 - Hearsay. The question elicits testimony regarding an out an out of court statement about why Oracle objects to the deposition company left Oracle that is offered for the truth of the testimony at: 59:5 - 59:18. matter asserted, and does not fall within any hearsay exception. Hearsay is not admissible at trial just because it is provided by a 30(b)(6) witness. See e.g., Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Gray, 2010 WL 3522954, at *7 (S.D. Ind. 2010). Jerome, Daniel [Electrolux] FRE 802 - Hearsay. The question elicits testimony regarding an out an out of court statement about why Oracle objects to the deposition company left Oracle that is offered for the truth of the testimony at: 86:7 - 86:11. matter asserted, and does not fall within any hearsay exception. Hearsay is not admissible at trial just because it is provided by a 30(b)(6) witness. See e.g., Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Gray, 2010 WL 3522954, at *7 (S.D. Ind. 2010). Juan Jones -- 4/24/2009 Jones, Juan FRE 403 - Unduly Prejudicial; FRE 402 - Not Relevant. This testimony, and the document it Oracle objects to the deposition references, have no probative value. The document is testimony at: 136:7 - 136: 15. an Oracle-internal communication and relates to a non-relevant customer that never left Oracle for TomorrowNow. This is substantially outweighed by the likelihood of undue prejudice that may be caused by the potentially inflammatory language. Jones, Juan FRE 403 - Unduly Prejudicial; FRE 402 - Not Relevant. This testimony has no probative value. The Oracle objects to the deposition testimony concerns an internal e-mail regarding an testimony at: 137:11 - 138:5; employee's personal opinions. This is substantially 138:14 - 138:22. outweighed by the likelihood of undue prejudice that may be caused by the potentially inflammatory language. John Kreul (Pepsi Americas) -- 6/2/2009 Kreul, John [Pepsi Americas] FRE 402 - Not Relevant; Plaintiffs' MIL 1. These questions, and the testimony they elicit, relate to Oracle objects to the deposition whether the customer sought advice of counsel testimony at: 133:14 - 134:2; regarding its contract with TomorrowNow. This is 135:9 - 135:17 completely irrelevant to any issue in this case. To the extent that it is relevant, it violates Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 1. Defendants stated in Court that "[they] do not plan to put in any evidence that evidences advice of counsel." 9/30/10 Hrg Tr. at 8:18 - 8:19. The Court granted Plaintiffs' MIL 1 "to the extent that any witness seeks to testify that he/she

4

Testimony Kreul, John [Pepsi Americas] Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 141:12 - 141:19. Nelson, Andrew Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 260:25 - 263:4; 263:20 - 264:7.

Oracle's Objections relied on advice of counsel with regard to TomorrowNow's operational activities." (Dkt 914). Calls for legal conclusion. Customer is asked to interpret the terms and conditions of its contract with TomorrowNow. Andrew Nelson -- 2/26/2009 FRE 802 - Hearsay; FRE 602 - Lack of Foundation. The witness testifies about out of court statements made by SAP and inferred from these statements. The witness lays no foundation of his personal knowledge about what SAP allegedly instructed TomorrowNow to do and testifies only to his alleged understanding of the alleged instruction. This testimony is offered only to show the truth of the matter asserted -- that SAP gave instructions to TomorrowNow and is therefore hearsay that does not fall within any exception. Andrew Nelson -- 4/29/2009 FRE 802 - Hearsay; FRE 602 - Lack of Foundation. The witness testifies about out of court statements made by SAP and information inferred from these statements. The witness lays no foundation of his personal knowledge about what SAP allegedly instructed TomorrowNow to do and testifies only to his understanding of the alleged instruction. This testimony is offered only to show the truth of the matter asserted -- that SAP gave instructions to TomorrowNow and is therefore hearsay that does not fall within any exception. FRE 602 - Lack of Foundation; calls for speculation. Witness testifies that he can only speculate about when SAP's alleged communication to TomorrowNow occurred and that he does not recall the details. FRE 802 - Hearsay; FRE 602 - Lack of Foundation; calls for speculation. The witness testifies about out of court statements made by SAP and information inferred from these statements. The witness lays no foundation of his personal knowledge about what SAP allegedly instructed TomorrowNow to do and testifies that he does not recall. This testimony is therefore speculation. The testimony is offered only to show the truth of the matter asserted -- that SAP

Ruling

Nelson, Andrew Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 273:8 - 273:24.

Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 273:25 - 274:9.

Nelson, Andrew Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 343:5 - 344:5.

5

Testimony Nelson, Andrew Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 362:13 - 362-24.

Nelson, Greg Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 198:20 - 199:6. Nelson, Shelley Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 453:7 - 453:11; 453:17 -453:21 .

Nelson, Shelley Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 459:19 - 460:7.

Nelson, Shelley Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 462:17 - 463:3.

Nelson, Shelley Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 631:8 - 631:24.

Oracle's Objections Ruling gave instructions to TomorrowNow and is therefore hearsay that does not fall within any exception. FRE 802 - Hearsay; calls for speculation. The witness testifies about out of court statements that he made to SAP. The statements are offered for the truth of the matter asserted -- that he communicated often to SAP about his progress -- and do not fall within a hearsay exception. The witness also speculates about the progress TomorrowNow was making. Greg Nelson -- 2/19/2009 FRE 802 - Hearsay. The deponent testifies about out of court statements made by Andrew Nelson. These out of court statements are offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and do not fall within any exception. Shelley Nelson -- 4/18/2008 FRE 802 - Hearsay. The deponent testifies about an out of court statement she implies someone else made to her -- since she "did not speak to SAP directly" -- regarding what SAP allegedly told TomorrowNow to do. These out of court statements are offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and do not fall within any exception. FRE 802 - Hearsay; FRE 602 - Calls for Speculation. The deponent testifies about out of court statements made by SAP. These out of court statements are offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and do not fall within any exception. Furthermore, the deponent's testimony calls for speculation because she says her answers are guesses. FRE 802 - Hearsay; calls for legal conclusion. The deponent testifies about out of court statements made by unnamed persons. These out of court statements are offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and do not fall within any exception. Question also elicits a legal opinion about whether there was a "valid justification" for changing it's business model. Shelley Nelson -- 9/3/2009 FRE 802 - Hearsay; calls for legal conclusion. The deponent testifies about out of court statements, even though she could not remember whether the statements were made by John Baugh or George Lester. These out of court statements are offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and do not fall within any exception. Question elicits legal opinion testimony about witness's understanding of a license

6

Testimony

Oracle's Objections agreement.

Ruling

Jeffrey O'Donnell (Lexmark) -- 9/15/2009 O'Donnell, Jeffrey [Lexmark] FRE 402 - Not Relevant; Plaintiffs' MIL 1. Customer sought advice of counsel regarding its contract with Oracle objects to the deposition TomorrowNow. This is irrelevant to any issue in the testimony at: 27:4 - 27:15. case. To the extent that it is relevant, it violates Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 1. Defendants stated in Court that "[they] do not plan to put in any evidence that evidences advice of counsel." 9/30/10 Hrg Tr. at 8:18 - 8:19. The Court granted Plaintiffs' MIL 1 "to the extent that any witness seeks to testify that he/she relied on advice of counsel with regard to TomorrowNow's operational activities" (Dkt 914). O'Neil, Owen Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 109:22 - 110:9. Owen O'Neil -- 3/10/2009 FRE 602 - Lack of Foundation. The question asks about any rules relating to use of customer software. The witness admits that he never "did any of this" and so he lacks the personal knowledge required by Rule 602. Seth Ravin -- 5/21/2009 FRE 802 - Hearsay. Former PeopleSoft CEO's statement is not a party admission as is he is not a representative of Oracle, never worked for Oracle, and at the time, PeopleSoft's interests were adverse to Oracle's. FRE 802 - Hearsay; FRE 402 - Relevance; FRE 403 Unduly Prejudicial. Deponent is testifying about out of court statements made by him and others at an alleged meeting, and those statements are offered for the truth of the matter asserted. The statements allegedly made by former PeopleSoft employees are not party admission as they were made prior to Oracle's acquisition of the company, and at a time when PeopleSoft's interests were adverse to Oracle's. Even if true, the statements are also not relevant because they do not bear on any issues in this case, including whether Defendants are liable, or whether Defendants caused customers to leave. Finally, it would unduly prejudicial to admit unsubstantiated deposition testimony regarding accusations of market-fixing. FRE 802 - Hearsay. The question at 26:8-26:12

Ravin, Seth Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 18:6 - 18:13.

Ravin, Seth Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 25:3 -25:23.

Ravin, Seth

7

Testimony Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 26:8-26:19.

Oracle's Objections Ruling contains out of court statements from an alleged meeting, that are offered for the truth of the matter asserted, that was previously testified to at 25:3 25:23 and objected to herein. are previously objected to above. Deponent's answer at 26:17-26:19 relays out of court statements made by him and others at an alleged meeting, and those statements are offered for the truth of the matter asserted. The statements allegedly made by former PeopleSoft employees are not party admission as they were made prior to Oracle's acquisition of the company, and at a time when PeopleSoft's interests were adverse to Oracle's. FRE 802 - Hearsay. The testimony relays out of court statements by the deponent, which are offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

Ravin, Seth Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 41:13-41:18; 41:641:11.

Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 41:19-42:5. Ravin, Seth Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 71:4-71:5; 71:971:13; 71:18-71:22.

FRE 602 - Calls for Speculation. Deponent is speculating about what PeopleSoft's company-wide policy about what was "allowed" "for years." FRE 802 - Hearsay; Foundation. Deponent is testifying about out of court statements by SAP employees regarding Oracle, which are offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Witness admits he has no personal knowledge for testifying to such hearsay. Tr. at 71:16-71:17.

Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 71:4-71:5; 71:971:13; 71:18-71:23.

FRE 402 - Relevance; FRE 404 - Character Evidence; FRE 403 - Unduly Prejudicial. Testimony about Oracle's "history of litigation" for "purposes of trying to stop a competitor" is improper character evidence offered to prove conformity therewith in the current action. Such testimony is also irrelevant to the issues to be resolved in this action. FRE 602 - Calls for Speculation; FRE 402 Relevance; FRE 403 - Unduly Prejudicial. Deponent has no basis for knowledge that the letter testified to was ever mailed to PeopleSoft, as he alleges.

Ravin, Seth Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 222:4-222:8; 224:14; 226:20-226:23; 227:7-

8

Testimony 227:10; 227:20-227:23; 227:8227:18; 228:24-230:8; 231:18-22.

Oracle's Objections Ruling Deponent admits the letter was "signed in Texas" and that he was only "told that it was mailed," which is also inadmissible hearsay. Thus, all testimony based on the assumption of the letter being sent to PeopleSoft was made without personal knowledge as was based on inadmissible hearsay. The testimony is additionally unreliable as the referenced Exhibit 1324 is unsigned, and neither Oracle, Defendants, nor the deponent have ever located or produced a signed copy.

Moreover, an allegation that Defendants sent PeopleSoft a letter in 2002 describing the alleged propriety of its business model is not relevant to any issue in this action, including liability or damages. Whether a letter has been sent is not probative of the fact or amount of damage, or as to causation.

Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 223:23-224:9; 226:15-226:19; 226:24-227:6; 227:11-227:19; 227:24-228:6; 228:24-231:22; 232:12-17.

FRE 1002 - Requirement of Original. The testimony is offered to prove the contents of the referenced letter. To prove the content in the writing, Defendants are required to use the original document, not the proferred testimony. Attorney even notes on the record to reporter that "Just one second. Are you getting all this? Because he is reading pretty fast. Do you have a copy of the document to help review the transcript?" Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 228:19-228:23. FRE 802 - Hearsay; FRE 402 - Relevance; FRE 403 Unduly Prejduicial. Deponent is testifying about alleged out of court statements made by others at an alleged meeting, and those statements are offered for the truth of the matter asserted. The statements allegedly made by former PeopleSoft employees are not party admission as they were made prior to Oracle's acquisition of the company, and at a time when PeopleSoft's interests were adverse to Oracle's. Even if true, the statements are also not relevant

Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 232:12-232:24.

9

Testimony

Oracle's Objections because they do not bear on any issues in this case, including whether Defendants are liable, or whether Defendants causes customers to leave. Finally, it would unduly prejudicial to admit unsubstantiated deposition testimony regarding accusations of market-fixing.

Ruling

Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 233:4-233:10.

FRE 802 - Hearsay. Deponent is testifying about a previous statement he allegedly made in 2002, and that statement is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 233:19-233:25; 234:9-234:23;

FRE 1002 - Requirement of Original. The testimony is offered to prove the contents of the referenced letter. To prove the content in the writing, Defendants are required to use the original document, not the proferred testimony. Attorney even notes on the record to reporter that "Just one second. Are you getting all this? Because he is reading pretty fast. Do you have a copy of the document to help review the transcript?" Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 228:19-228:23. FRE 1002 - Requirement of Original. The testimony is offered to prove the contents of the referenced letter. To prove the content in the writing, Defendants are required to use the original document, not the preferred testimony.

Ravin, Seth Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 236:3-236:8; 236:25-237:5; 237:9-12; 237:18238:20; 239:20-240:4; 240:8240:15; 240:20-241:2.

Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 238:23-239:7

FRE 802 - Hearsay Deponent is testifying to his prior statement, and an out of court response, both of which are out of court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted. FRE 602 - Lack of Foundation Deponent has no basis for knowing whether anyone at PeopleSoft may have contacted anyone at TomorrowNow, including Mr. Nelson.

Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 241:6-241:11.

10

Testimony Ravin, Seth Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 346:3 - 346:16.

Ravin, Seth Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 348:3-10.

Ravin, Seth Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 350:5 - 351:1.

Ravin, Seth Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 351:19 - 352:2; 352:7 - 352:19.

Oracle's Objections Seth Ravin -- 7/21/2010 FRE 402 - Not Relevant; FRE 602 - Lack Of Foundation/Speculation. The questions concern what the deponent knew about what someone else knew. These questions are not relevant to any issue in this case, and there is no evidence that the deponent has personal knowledge of this matter. FRE 403 - Probative value outweighed by prejudice; FRE 402 - Not Relevant; Dkt 914 (P MIL 7). This testimony was the specifically subject of Oracle's MIL 7, which the court granted. See Dkt 914 at 24:7 - 24:8. Furthermore, this testimony is not relevant to any issue in the case, and it is unduly prejudicial. FRE 403 - Probative value outweighed by prejudice; FRE 402 - Not Relevant; FRE 802 - Hearsay; FRE 1002 - Best Evidence; Dkt 914 (P MIL 7). This testimony was the subject of Oracle's MIL 7, which the court granted. See Dkt 914 at 24:7 - 24:8. Furthermore, this testimony is not relevant to any issue in the case, and it is unduly prejudicial. In addition, the testimony refers to the contents of a letter. To prove the contents of this writing, defendants are required to use the original. Finally, the testimony concerns a communication from Siebel (prior to the Oracle acquisition), and it is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is therefore hearsay and does not fall under any exception. FRE 403 - Probative value outweighed by prejudice; FRE 402 - Not Relevant; FRE 802 - Hearsay; FRE 1002 - Best Evidence; Dkt 914 (P MIL 7). This testimony was Oracle's MIL 7, which the court granted. See Dkt 914 at 24:7 - 24:8. Furthermore, this testimony is not relevant to any issue in the case, and it is unfairly prejudicial. In addition, the testimony refers to the contents of letters. To prove the contents of these writings, defendants are required to use the original. Finally, the testimony concerns communication from Siebel (prior to the Oracle acquisition), and is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is therefore hearsay and does not fall under any exception. FRE 403 - Probative value outweighed by prejudice; FRE 402 - Not Relevant. This testimony is not relevant to any issue in the case, and is unfairly

Ruling

Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 352:3 - 352:6.

11

Testimony Ravin, Seth Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 353:15-20.

Ravin, Seth Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 354:6 -354:25; 355:7 - 355:14.

Ravin, Seth Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 356:16 - 357:12.

Oracle's Objections Ruling prejudicial. FRE 403 - Probative value outweighed by prejudice; FRE 402 - Not Relevant; FRE 802 - Hearsay; FRE 1002 - Best Evidence; Dkt 914 (P MIL 7). This testimony was Oracle's MIL 7, which the court granted. See Dkt 914 at 24:7 - 24:8. Furthermore, this testimony is not relevant to any issue in the case, and it is unfairly prejudicial. In addition, the testimony refers to statements made in letters. To prove the contents of these writings, defendants are required to use the originals. Finally, the testimony concerns communications from Siebel (prior to the Oracle acquisition), and is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is therefore hearsay and does not fall under any exception. FRE 403 - Probative value outweighed by prejudice; FRE 402 - Not Relevant; FRE 802 - Hearsay; FRE 1002 - Best Evidence; Dkt 914 (P MIL 7). This testimony was specifically moved on in Oracle's MIL 7, which the court granted. See Dkt 914 at 24:7 24:8. Furthermore, this testimony is not relevant to any issue in the case, and it is unfairly prejudicial. In addition, the testimony refers to statements made by Oracle and Rimini Street in a series of letters. To prove the contents of these writings, defendants are required to use the originals. Finally, the testimony concerns out of court statements and are offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is therefore hearsay and does not fall under any exception. FRE 403 - Probative value outweighed by prejudice; FRE 402 - Not Relevant; FRE 802 - Hearsay; FRE 1002 - Best Evidence; Dkt 914 (P MIL 7). This testimony was specifically moved on in Oracle's MIL 7, which the court granted. See Dkt 914 at 24:7 24:8. Furthermore, this testimony is not relevant to any issue in the case, and it is unfairly prejudicial. In addition, the testimony refers to statements in a Rimini Street Press Release. To prove the contents of these writings, defendants are required to use the originals. Finally, the testimony concerns out of court statements and are offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is therefore hearsay and does not fall under any exception. FRE 602 - Lack Of Foundation; FRE 402 - Not

Oracle objects to the deposition

12

Testimony testimony at: 357:19 - 358:11.

Ravin, Seth Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 360:12 - 361:18.

Oracle's Objections Relevant; FRE 403 - Probative value outweighed by prejudice; FRE 802 - Hearsay; Dkt 914 (P MIL 7). . The deponent admits that he was not on the call he is then asked about. (357:13 - 357:17) As a result, the deponent has no personal knowledge of the matter. Furthermore, this testimony is not relevant to any issue in the case, and it is unfairly prejudicial. In addition, the testimony concerns out of court statements and are offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is therefore hearsay and does not fall under any exception. Finally, the testimony was excluded by Oracle's MIL 7 as it relates to Rimini Street's allegations in that separate litigation. FRE 402 - Not Relevant; FRE 403 - Probative value outweighed by prejudice; FRE 802 - Hearsay; Dkt 914 (P MIL 7). The deponent admits that he was not on the call he is then asked about. (357:13 - 357:17) As a result, the deponent has no personal knowledge of the matter. Furthermore, this testimony is not relevant to any issue in the case, and it is unfairly prejudicial. In addition, the testimony concerns out of court statements and are offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is therefore hearsay and does not fall under any exception. Finally, the testimony was excluded by Oracle's MIL 7 as it relates to Rimini Street's allegations in that separate litigation. Elizabeth Shippy -- 9/25/2008 FRE 802 - Hearsay. The deponent testifies about out of court statements made by unnamed persons. These out of court statements are offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and do not fall within any exception. Pete Surette -- 6/16/2009 FRE 802 - Hearsay. The deponent testifies about out of court statements made by unnamed persons. These out of court statements are offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and do not fall within any exception. FRE 802 - Hearsay. The deponent testifies about out of court statements made by unnamed persons. These out of court statements are offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and do not fall within any exception.

Ruling

Shippy, Elizabeth Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 42:10 - 42:17.

Surette, Peter Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 30:6 - 30:19. Surette, Peter Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 77:7 - 77:17.

13

Testimony

Oracle's Objections

Ruling

Robert Wasson (McLennan County) -- 7/23/2009 Wasson, Robert [McLennan Calls for legal conclusion; FRE 602 - Lack of County] Foundation. The question asks whether the lay witness believes Rimini Street "infringes on Oracle's Oracle objects to the deposition intellectual property rights" and therefore calls for a testimony at: 101:16 - 101:19. legal conclusion. Witness lacks foundation to answer to legal question. Wasson,Robert [McLennan County] Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 139:24 - 140:14. FRE 402 - Not Relevant; Plaintiffs' MIL 1. Customer sought advice of counsel regarding its contract with TomorrowNow. This is irrelevant to any issue in the case. It also violates Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 1. Defendants stated in Court that "[they] do not plan to put in any evidence that evidences advice of counsel." 9/30/10 Hrg Tr. at 8:18 - 8:19. The Court granted Plaintiffs' MIL 1 "to the extent that any witness seeks to testify that he/she relied on advice of counsel with regard to TomorrowNow's operational activities" (Dkt 914). FRE 402 - Not Relevant; Plaintiffs' MIL 1. Customer sought advice of counsel regarding its contract with TomorrowNow. This is irrelevant to any issue in the case. To the extent that it is relevant, it violates Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 1. Defendants stated in Court that "[they] do not plan to put in any evidence that evidences advice of counsel." 9/30/10 Hrg Tr. at 8:18 - 8:19. The Court granted Plaintiffs' MIL 1 "to the extent that any witness seeks to testify that he/she relied on advice of counsel with regard to TomorrowNow's operational activities" (Dkt 914). Calls for legal conclusion. Customer is asked to interpret the terms and conditions of its contract with TomorrowNow.

Wasson, Robert [McLennan County] Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 141:13 - 141:24.

Wasson, Robert [McLennan County] Oracle objects to the deposition testimony at: 142:18 - 143:5.

14