Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 1097

OBJECTIONS to re #1081 Response ( Non Motion ) GOOGLE'S OBJECTION TO ORACLE'S RESPONSES TO GOOGLE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW by Google Inc.. (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 5/7/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
ROBERT A. VAN NEST - # 84065
[e-mail]
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON - # 184325
[e-mail]
DANIEL PURCELL - # 191424
[e-mail]
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone:
415 391 5400
Facsimile:
415 397 7188

KING & SPALDING LLP
DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. - #112279
[e-mail]
CHERYL A. SABNIS - #224323
[e-mail]
101 Second Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

KING & SPALDING LLP
SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER
(Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
ROBERT F. PERRY
[e-mail]
BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice)
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

IAN C. BALLON - #141819
[e-mail]
HEATHER MEEKER - #172148
[e-mail]
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1900 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

13
14

Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

18

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

19

Plaintiff,

20

v.

21

Case No. 3:10-cv-03561 WHA
GOOGLE’S OBJECTION TO ORACLE’S
RESPONSES TO GOOGLE’S PROPOSED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

GOOGLE INC.,

22

Defendant.

Dept.:
Judge:

Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Hon. William Alsup

23
24
25
26
27
28
GOOGLE’S OBJECTION TO ORACLE’S RESPONSE TO GOOGLE’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Case No. 3:10-CV-03561 WHA
662197.01

1

Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) hereby objects to Oracle’s Responses to Google’s

2

Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [Dkt. 1081] (“Oracle’s Responses”). The

3

Court should direct Oracle to conform its Responses to the format and page limit required by the

4

Court’s April 24, 2012 Order Regarding Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Re

5

All Issues of Fact and Law That Must be Resolved by the Judge, Including Scope of Protection of

6

the Copyrights (the “Order”) [Dkt. 968].

7

In the Order, the Court instructed the parties to provide numbered findings of fact, double-

8

spaced, followed by single-spaced trial record cites supporting the proposed finding. Both parties

9

followed this format. The Court also instructed each party to file a response to the other party’s

10

proposed findings and conclusions. The Court ordered that the responses “should reproduce each

11

original finding and conclusion, and then, immediately after each, supply the responsive

12

information. It may not exceed twice the overall number of pages used by the submission to

13

which it responds.” The purpose here is straightforward: to include all relevant information

14

relating to each party’s proposed findings and conclusions in one document. The Court would

15

then have one document with Google’s findings and conclusions (including Google’s supporting

16

evidence and authorities) and Oracle’s responses (including Oracle’s supporting evidence and

17

authorities), with half of the space devoted to Google’s position, and half to Oracle’s position.

18

The Court would have a similar document for Oracle’s findings and conclusions. Google

19

provided such a document in its responses to Oracle’s proposed findings and conclusions. Dkt.

20

1079.

21

Instead of simply “reproduc[ing]” Google’s proposed findings and conclusions, together

22

with Google’s evidence and authorities, Oracle deleted all of Google’s record citations, excerpts,

23

and case authority and converted Google’s proposed findings and conclusions to single-spaced

24

type. This reduced Google’s 35 pages of proposed findings and conclusions to 12 pages.

25

Nevertheless, Oracle’s Responses were 70 pages long. Thus, instead of the 35 pages to which it

26

was entitled, Oracle gave itself a 58-page response. In addition to allowing Oracle extra space,

27

Oracle’s strategy allows it to criticize Google for not citing on-point evidence when the very

28

1
GOOGLE’S OBJECTION TO ORACLE’S RESPONSE TO GOOGLE’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561 WHA

662197.01

1
2
3

quotes omitted by Oracle often provided just that evidence.
For these reasons, Google objects to Oracle’s Responses. The Court should direct Oracle
to file revised responses in compliance with the Court’s order.

4
5
6

Dated: May 7, 2012

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
By:

7

/s/ Robert A. Van Nest
ROBERT A. VAN NEST
Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
GOOGLE’S OBJECTION TO ORACLE’S RESPONSE TO GOOGLE’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561 WHAOtherCounsel

662197.01