Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
232
ORDER re #227 Letter filed by Oracle America, Inc. Signed by Judge Donna M. Ryu on 7/22/2011. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
GOOGLE INC.,
15
ORDER RE PARTIES’ JULY 1, 2011
JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER
v.
14
No. C-10-03561-WHA (DMR)
Defendant.
___________________________________/
16
17
Before the court is the parties’ July 1, 2011 joint discovery letter (“Letter”), in which
18
Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. asks the court to order Defendant Google Inc. to produce “non-mobile
19
data and projections responsive to Request for Production (‘RFP’) Nos. 168-174.” (Letter at 1.) On
20
July 22, 2011, Judge Alsup granted in part Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s expert damage
21
report. See generally Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C-10-3561-WHA (N.D. Cal. July 22,
22
2011) (order granting in part motion to strike damage report of plaintiff expert Iain Cockburn).
23
Despite Judge Alsup’s findings of fault within the report, and assuming that Plaintiff properly tethers
24
a revised report to its infringing claims, it remains clear that Plaintiff may take into account at least
25
some of Defendant’s non-mobile, American-based businesses in formulating its damages
26
assessment. See id. at 5-6, 8-10.
27
Consequently, the court hereby ORDERS that the parties shall meet and confer to resolve the
28
discovery disputes set forth in the Letter. The court notes that Plaintiff appears to request significant
1
amounts of discovery. In light of the proportionality requirements mandated in Federal Rule of
2
Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C) and the fast approaching end of discovery, the parties shall use
3
Plaintiff’s proposed compromise in the Letter as a starting point from which Plaintiff’s discovery
4
requests shall be reduced. Moreover, any non-mobile business that Plaintiff seeks to account for in
5
its damage report must be supported by the evidence and not be purely speculative. For example,
6
Judge Alsup noted that “[t]here is evidence . . . that users with Android phones ‘search twice as
7
much’ as users with other types of phones, increasing the advertising revenue derived from Google’s
8
search service.” Order at 9. Thus, Plaintiff will be allowed to seek reasonable discovery with
9
respect to Defendant’s search services advertising revenue. Other non-mobile discovery should be
discovery letter with the court no later than July 28, 2011.
RT
ER
H
15
. Ryu
onna M
Judge D
Dated: July 22, 2011
16
R NIA
14
FO
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ED
ORDER
A
13
O
IT IS S
LI
UNIT
ED
12
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
RT
U
O
S
11
For the Northern District of California
similarly supportable. If the parties still cannot resolve their disputes, they shall file a joint
NO
United States District Court
10
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?