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
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?