Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 988

UPDATED OBJECTIONS AND DEFENDANTS RESPONSES RE CUSTOMER TESTIMONY AND RELATED EXHIBITS re 943 Objections by 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)(Howard, Geoffrey) (Filed on 11/15/2010) Modified on 11/16/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF).

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 988 Att. 1

EXHIBIT A
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ORACLE USA, INC., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) -vs) ) SAP AG, a German corporation, ) SAP AMERICA, INC., a Delaware ) corporation, TOMORROWNOW, INC., a) Texas corporation, and DOES 1-50,) inclusive, ) ) Defendants. )

No. 07-CV-1658 PJH

Videotaped Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of PEPSIAMERICAS, INC., through JOHN KREUL, taken before TRACY L. BLASZAK, CSR, CRR, and Notary Public, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts pertaining to the taking of depositions, at Suite 1400, 1475 East Woodfield Road, in the Village of Schaumburg, Cook County, Illinois at 8:35 a.m. on the 2nd day of June, A.D., 2009.

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

JOHN KREUL June 2, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY 88
10:45:23 10:45:29 10:45:34 10:45:36 10:45:42 10:45:43 10:45:50 10:45:52 10:45:58 10:46:01 10:46:04 10:46:07 10:46:08 10:46:13 10:46:15 10:46:19 10:46:21 10:46:23 10:46:24 10:46:26 10:46:27 10:46:30 10:46:33 10:46:35 10:46:38

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

A Q

Correct. And in addition, you indicate that, "When I

asked Andrew if his company breached the contract, he paused for about five seconds and stated he did not think so." What contract were you referencing there? A The contract between PepsiAmericas and

TomorrowNow. Q And you said, "Andrew must have stated at least

five times that we should take a very close look at our Oracle contract to confirm we are in compliance." Do you see that? A Q Yes. Hadn't TomorrowNow already assured you that

Pepsi was in compliance when it first agreed to service Tomorrow -- Pepsi? MR. McDONELL: in evidence. THE WITNESS: MS. HOUSE: Q Say the question, please, again. My question to you is: Now Lack of foundation, assumes facts not

Mr. Nelson seems to be asking Pepsi to go and figure out if it was in compliance with its agreement with its licenses with PeopleSoft, right? was asking you to do that? A Yes. Did you understand he

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

JOHN KREUL June 2, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY 133
11:52:50 11:52:55 11:52:58 11:53:00 11:53:01 11:53:10 11:53:13 11:53:13 11:53:14 11:53:16 11:53:21 11:53:21 11:53:22 11:53:22 11:53:23 11:53:27 11:53:32 11:53:36 11:53:37 11:53:40 11:53:40 11:53:45 11:53:49 11:53:53 11:53:53

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

A

We had asked Oracle on a number of occasions to

reduce the cost of the maintenance. Q A Q And what response did you get? No. Okay. In the same slide on page 9, under the

complete TomorrowNow due diligence review, do you see that? A Q Yes. There is a sub bullet point, the last one, it

says, "Perform legal review of company's service model and contracts." Do you see that? A Q Yes. What did that mean? Asked and answered. We reviewed the TomorrowNow contract

MS. HOUSE: THE WITNESS:

to see if we felt it was a legal service model. MR. McDONELL: Q And did you have your attorneys

involved in that review? A Q Yes. And did your attorneys participate in reviewing

your agreements with PeopleSoft in terms of what you were allowed to do or not do under the PeopleSoft agreements? A To review the PeopleSoft agreements?

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

JOHN KREUL June 2, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY 134
11:53:58 11:53:58 11:54:00 11:54:03 11:54:05 11:54:11 11:54:14 11:54:15 11:54:19 11:54:24 11:54:25 11:54:27 11:54:31 11:54:32 11:54:36 11:54:39 11:54:44 11:54:46 11:54:50 11:54:53 11:54:56 11:55:00 11:55:03 11:55:05 11:55:06

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

Q A Q

Yes. Yes, that review was done. So, for example, there has been testimony by you

here today that in the relationship with TomorrowNow, you provided the PeopleSoft software to TomorrowNow so TomorrowNow could host a demo environment, right? A Q That's correct, yes. And your attorneys had looked at the PeopleSoft

agreements and didn't raise any issue with that, right? MR. NEHS: MS. HOUSE: Object to the form of the question. I think that invades the attorney-client

privilege, but it's up to you to object if you want. MR. NEHS: Object to the form of the question and

ask you to rephrase it, if you could. MR. McDONELL: Q In connection with the due

diligence review of the decision whether to enter into this relationship with TomorrowNow, did anyone on the PeopleSoft side -- I'm sorry, on the PepsiAmericas side raise any concern about the model in which you would provide the software to TomorrowNow so TomorrowNow could have a demo environment? MR. NEHS: You can answer. I'm sorry, you're going to have to

THE WITNESS:

repeat it one more time. MR. McDONELL: Q Okay. It's getting a little

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

JOHN KREUL June 2, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY 135
11:55:08 11:55:11 11:55:12 11:55:15 11:55:17 11:55:19 11:55:22 11:55:23 11:55:24 11:55:27 11:55:30 11:55:35 11:55:36 11:55:37 11:55:40 11:55:44 11:55:45 11:55:47 11:55:59 11:56:05 11:56:08 11:56:14 11:56:16 11:56:19 11:56:20

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

long.

I'll try to be more clear. In connection with your agreement with

TomorrowNow, PepsiAmericas provided the PeopleSoft software to TomorrowNow. A Q Right. And they did that so TomorrowNow would have a

demo environment to work with, right? A Q Correct. In going into the decision whether to enter the

relationship with TomorrowNow, did anyone from PepsiAmericas raise a question about whether that was legal? A Q No. But PepsiAmericas did go back and review its

PeopleSoft agreements before entering into the agreement with TomorrowNow, right? A Q Yes. Staying here with Exhibit 1332, slide 9 --

actually, skip that. Turn to the last page of Exhibit 1332, please. There is a reference to a couple of companies that counsel asked you about. What was the point of including these companies in these slides? MS. HOUSE: Asked and answered.

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]