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. 5

EXHIBIT E
Dockets.Justia.com

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. ______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 07-CV-1658 (PJH)

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY ----------------------------------ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ROBERT WASSON JULY 23, 2009 -----------------------------------

ROBERT WASSON July 23, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY 139 1 2 3 4
13:20

that is where the people we are meeting with will be on Friday. Does that refresh your recollection as to whether -A. It appears Steve might have went, but I have no But I know

5 6 7 8 9

recollection of him actually going or not.

I've never been there, and then probably something came up where I couldn't make it. I do remember being

disappointed I didn't get to go when the two techs went because I did want to see their data center, but I can't even remember now what prevented me from going. Q. Sure. Sure. And I think you testified earlier that you participated in the contract negotiation between TomorrowNow and McLennan County at some level? A. Q. Uh-huh, yes. Was that contract with TomorrowNow, McLennan

13:20

10 11 12 13 14

13:21

15 16 17 18 19

County contract, was it a negotiated contract? MR. RUSSELL: ambiguous. A. I would -- I'm not sure what you mean by We negotiated price and there's some Objection, vague and

13:21

20 21 22 23 24

"negotiation."

wording and then support. Q. (BY MR. FUCHS) So I think the wording is what Did McLennan County give suggestions of

13:21

25

I'm focused on.

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

ROBERT WASSON July 23, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY 140 1 2 3 4
13:21

word changes and things that needed to be changed in order for the contract to be acceptable? A. I -- my recollection is yes. How we do it is

we send a contract to the county attorney, and then we go from there. I'm sure there were some changes to the

5 6 7 8 9

contract that needed to be made. Q. So the TomorrowNow contract was -- WAS passed

through lawyers at some point in time? A. Q. Correct. Do you remember any major sticking points in

13:22

10 11 12 13 14

the contract? MR. RUSSELL: ambiguous. A. I can't remember any at this time. (Exhibit 546 was marked.) Q. (BY MR. FUCHS) The court reporter's handed you It's an Objection, vague and

13:22

15 16 17 18 19

what's been marked as Defense Exhibit 546.

e-mail string, and then the top e-mail is from Steve Moore dated 10/13/2005 to Spencer Phillips with a cc to yourself, subject line, TomorrowNow-McLennan County revised agreement attached. And if you'll start at the first e-mail in the string. No. 187. So it's on the last page ending in Bates

13:23

20 21 22 23 24

Steve Moore -- about halfway up the page,

13:23

25

there's an e-mail from Steve Moore to Spencer Phillips.

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

ROBERT WASSON July 23, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY 141 1 2 3 4
13:24

A. Q. A. Q.

Is this on the first page? No, it's the very last page. Okay. I'm kind of going in chronological order of the Halfway up the page, and you see the

5 6 7 8 9

e-mail string.

e-mail from Steve Moore to Spencer Phillips dated 10/4/2005, midway up, right about here (Indicating)? A. Q. Yep. Steve appears to be saying to Spencer -- oh, by

13:24

10 11 12 13 14

the way, do you remember receiving this e-mail? A. I don't remember seeing it, but I prob -- I'm

sure -- my name is on it, so I'm sure I did receive it. Q. All right. So that e-mail -- or Spencer -- or

Steve appears to be saying to Spencer Phillips, Here are copies of the notes our outside attorneys made on the contract. Does that confirm the process that you expected the contract to go through, that it would be passed through the lawyers? A. Q. Yes. Did -- does it also show that those lawyers

13:24

15 16 17 18 19

13:25

20 21 22 23 24

made comments and suggestions to the language of the contract? A. Q. Yes. If you'd turn over to the next page --

13:25

25

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

ROBERT WASSON July 23, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY 142 1 2 3 4
13:25

actually, let's go to the very first page of the exhibit. (Witness complied.) Q. page from Spencer Phillips to Steve Moore, Spencer says to Steve, Just ensuring that you have received Bob Gibe's response, my VP. Please let me know if you need to have (BY MR. FUCHS) And the bottom e-mail on that

5 6 7 8 9

a call to discuss any of these points in the e-mail below after you and/or Mr. Dixon have had a chance to review. And if you turn over to the Bob Gibe e-mail, does that appear to you to be Bob Gibe's response to each of the comments that McLennan County had to the -- TomorrowNow's support agreement? A. Q. Yes. I want to focus in on what's been -- No. 6.

13:25

10 11 12 13 14

13:26

15 16 17 18 19

It says, Section 9A, Client Indemnity, and then it says, dash, dash, rejected. This indemnity is directly

13:26

20 21 22 23 24

related to the fact that the county is representing to TomorrowNow that you have a license to the PeopleSoft product that we are being asked to perform work against. Do you have an understanding what's meant there?

13:26

25

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

ROBERT WASSON July 23, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY 143 1 2 3 4
13:26

A. Q.

No. Do you agree that the county was required to

represent that it had a license to the PeopleSoft products that it was asking TomorrowNow to support? A. Q. Yes. Do you -- do you know if anyone at McLennan

5 6 7 8 9

County reviewed their PeopleSoft license -- the PeopleSoft software license and service agreement as part of the negotiation process with TomorrowNow? A. Q. I know of nobody. Okay. Did McLennan County provide to

13:27

10 11 12 13 14

TomorrowNow the PeopleSoft software license and service agreement as part of the negotiation? A. I can't recall. I don't recall -- you know, if

13:28

15 16 17 18 19

I did it, but somebody -- somebody other than I might have provided it to them. that -Q. A. Q. A. Q. You don't have any recollection? No recollection. -- one way or the other? No. I hate it when I do that. Wrong notes in my But I can't recall any of

13:28

20 21 22 23 24

outline here. (Exhibit 547 was marked.) Q. (BY MR. FUCHS) Take a minute if you can to take

13:29

25

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]