Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 1238

ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT. Signed by Judge Alsup on August 20, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT

GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
/

14
15

No. C 10-03561 WHA

The August 7 order was not limited to authors “paid . . . to report or comment” or to

16

“quid pro quo” situations. Rather, the order was designed to bring to light authors whose

17

statements about the issues in the case might have been influenced by the receipt of money from

18

Google or Oracle. For example, Oracle has disclosed that it retained a blogger as a consultant.

19

Even though the payment was for consulting work, the payment might have influenced the

20

blogger’s reports on issues in the civil action. Just as a treatise on the law may influence the

21

courts, public commentary that purports to be independent may have an influence on the courts

22

and/or their staff if only in subtle ways. If a treatise author or blogger is paid by a litigant,

23

should not that relationship be known?

24

In the Court’s view, Google has failed to comply with the August 7 order. Google is

25

directed to do so by FRIDAY, AUGUST 24 AT NOON with the following clarifications. Payments

26

do not include advertising revenue received by commenters. Nor does it include experts

27

disclosed under Rule 26. Google suggests that it has paid so many commenters that it will be

28

1

impossible to list them all. Please simply do your best but the impossible is not required. Oracle

2

managed to do it. Google can do it too by listing all commenters known by Google to have

3

received payments as consultants, contractors, vendors, or employees. As for organizations

4

receiving money, they need not be listed unless one of its employees was a commenter. Gifts to

5

universities can be ignored. Again, Google need only disclose those commenters that can be

6

identified after a reasonably diligent search. Oracle must supplement its list if this order clarifies

7

any issue for Oracle.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: August 20, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2