Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 271

ORDER DENYING PRECIS REQUESTS re #269 Letter filed by Oracle America, Inc., #265 Letter filed by Google Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on August 4, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING
PRÉCIS REQUESTS

GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
/

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

No. C 10-03561 WHA

On July 28, 2011, Google Inc. filed a précis requesting permission to file motions to seal

12

and redact portions of the public record containing references to a Google document cited by

13

Oracle America, Inc. at the July 21 hearing on Google’s Daubert motion (Dkt. No. 247). On

14

August 1, 2011, the request was denied (Dkt. No. 255). Google now seeks leave to submit an in

15

camera factual proffer supporting its denied request (Dkt. No. 265). This new request is also

16

DENIED. Construed as support for Google’s July 28 request, it is untimely. Construed as a

17

request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the August 1 order, it does not establish

18

any of the grounds for reconsideration set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-9(b).

19

In opposing Google’s latest request, Oracle America, Inc. “respectfully requests that the

20

Court issue an order compelling Google to produce the Lindholm document forthwith”

21

(Dkt. No. 269 at 3). This request is also DENIED. Oracle does not explain why it “has twice

22

asked Google to re-produce the Lindholm document” despite the fact that the document already

23

was produced (ibid.). Moreover, all discovery disputes in this action have been referred to

24

Magistrate Judge Ryu. A letter to the undersigned judge responding to a précis request is not the

25

proper place to raise a discovery dispute.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated: August 4, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE