Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 178

RESPONSE (re #164 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ) filed byOracle America, Inc.. (Holtzman, Steven) (Filed on 6/16/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)
[e-mail]
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)
[e-mail]
DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)
[e-mail]
755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]

6
7

&

C A L I F O R N I A

S C H I L L E R
B O I E S ,

9

O A K L A N D ,

F L E X N E R

L L P

8

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)
[e-mail]
1999 Harrison St., Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
ORACLE CORPORATION
DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)
[e-mail]
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)
[e-mail]
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)
[e-mail]
500 Oracle Parkway
Redwood City, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

22
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA

23
Plaintiff,
24
v.
25

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSE
TO DEFENDANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL ITS DAUBERT
PRÉCIS

GOOGLE, INC.
26
27

Defendant.

Dept.: Courtroom 9, 19th Floor
Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup

28
ORACLE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL ITS DAUBERT PRECIS
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA

1
2
3

Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) opposes Google’s Administrative Motion to Seal its
précis, and requests that the Court deny that motion and file Google’s précis in the public record.
Google claims that filing under seal is warranted by summary references to, or

F L E X N E R

a. Information that is clearly in the public domain (for example, its general reference to the
overall value of Oracle’s acquisition of Sun);

8
C A L I F O R N I A

&

Instead, Google’s redactions include:

7

O A K L A N D ,

S C H I L L E R

Google does not limit its proposed redactions to references to materials that Oracle designated AEO.

6

B O I E S ,

mischaracterizations of, Oracle “attorneys’ eyes only” (“AEO”) material included in the précis.

5

L L P

4

b. Google’s erroneous or distorted descriptions of the facts (for example, its incorrect

9

assessment of the value of one of the patents-in-suit);

10

c. Google’s misrepresentation of aspects of Professor Cockburn’s damages analysis (for

11
12

example, the misrepresentation that Professor Cockburn included all Google advertising

13

revenue from all Android devices and all harm from fragmentation of Java in his

14

valuation calculations, the misrepresentation that he applied a 50% royalty rate as part of

15

his analysis—a misrepresentation that Google admits in its full Daubert motion—and

16

the misrepresentation of the amount of Professor Cockburn’s ultimate damages

17

opinion);

18

d. Isolated words such as “multi-billion” and “valueless”; and

19

e. Any and all references to the fact that Oracle’s damages claims in this case are in the
billions of dollars.

20
21

As Oracle will explain in its Opposition to Google’s Daubert motion, Oracle’s damages claims

22

are based on both accepted methodology and a wealth of concrete evidence. They should not be hidden

23

from public view.

24
25

Consequently, Oracle does not object to making the summary information supposedly—though
inaccurately and misleadingly—extracted from confidential/AEO documents public.

26

//

27

//

28

//
1
ORACLE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL ITS DAUBERT PRECIS
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA

1

By opposing Google’s administrative motion to seal, Oracle America does not intend to waive

2

its ability to claim confidentiality over the documents on which Google’s representations and

3

misrepresentations are based.

4
5

&

8
C A L I F O R N I A

S C H I L L E R
B O I E S ,

7

O A K L A N D ,

F L E X N E R

L L P

6

Dated: June 16, 2011

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
By: /s/ Steven C. Holtzman
Steven C. Holtzman
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
ORACLE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL ITS DAUBERT PRECIS
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA