Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 192

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal PORTIONS OF OPPOSITION TO GOOGLES DAUBERT MOTION AND EXHIBITS filed by Oracle America, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit, #2 Proposed Order)(Rutherford, Alanna) (Filed on 6/28/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

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]
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]
ALANNA RUTHERFORD (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10022
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone] (fax)
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.

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

22

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

23

Plaintiff,

24

v.

25

GOOGLE, INC.

26

Defendant.

Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF
OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE’S DAUBERT
MOTION AND EXHIBITS
Dept.: Courtroom 9, 19th Floor
Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup

27
28
ORACLE’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF OPPOSITION TO DAUBERT MOTION
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA

1

Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) hereby moves to file portions of its Opposition to

2

Google’s Daubert Motion (“Opposition”), and Exhibits C, D, K, and M to the supporting Declaration of

3

Fred Norton (“Norton Declaration”) under seal pursuant to Civil L. R. 79-5(c) and (d).

4

Oracle’s Opposition contains information that has been designated by either Google, Inc.

5

(“Google”) or Oracle as Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only pursuant to the

6

Order Approving Stipulated Protective Order Subject to Stated Conditions entered in this case. (Dkt.

7

No. 68.)

8
9

Oracle confidential information has been redacted from pages 12–13 and pages 20–21 of the
Opposition. (Declaration of Matthew Sarboraria In Support Of Oracle America, Inc.’s Administrative

10

Motion To File Under Seal Portions Of Opposition To Google’s Daubert Motion (hereinafter,

11

“Sarboraria Decl.”) at ¶ 5.) Most of these redactions – on page 12:24 through 13:2, page 20:18 through

12

20:23, and footnote 9 – stem from Google’s choice to include Oracle’s competitively sensitive

13

information in its Daubert motion and exhibits. This Court previously held that the redacted

14

information should remain under seal. (See Order Partially Granting Motion To File Documents Under

15

Seal (hereinafter “Order”) at 1 (Dkt. No. 168) (holding that Exhibit H, J, and W to the Weingaertner

16

declaration should be filed under seal).) The remaining redacted sentence – on page 20:23 through 21:3

17

– covers third-party valuation information from Credit Suisse that Oracle obtained prior to its merger

18

with Sun. Like the Duff & Phelps document that this Court previously held should be placed under

19

seal, (id.), disclosure of this third-party valuation document could cause competitive harm to Oracle.

20

(See Sarboraria Decl. ¶ 6 (describing harm to Oracle).) Accordingly, Oracle moves to seal those

21

portions of the Opposition under Civil L. R. 79-5(c).

22

The remaining redactions protect Google confidential information. Civil L. R. 79-5(d). Exhibits

23

C, D, K, and L to the Norton Declaration are documents that Google has designated Confidential or

24

Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only. The remaining redactions in the Opposition are tailored to

25

maintain the confidentiality of that material, as well as other material that Google has so designated.

26

Oracle states no position as to whether disclosure of materials marked by Google as Confidential or

27

Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only material would cause harm to Google, and would not

28

oppose an order requiring Google to make that information public.
1
ORACLE’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF OPPOSITION TO DAUBERT MOTION
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA

1

A proposed order sealing Oracle confidential information is attached.

2
3
4
5
6

Dated: June 28, 2011

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
By: /s/ Alanna Rutherford
Alanna Rutherford
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
ORACLE’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF OPPOSITION TO DAUBERT MOTION
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA