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