Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
470
ORDER REGARDING PRECIS REQUEST TO FILE DAUBERT MOTION CONCERNING SECOND DAMAGES REPORT re #450 Letter filed by Google Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on September 27, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER REGARDING
PRÉCIS REQUEST TO FILE
DAUBERT MOTION
CONCERNING SECOND
DAMAGES REPORT
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
/
15
16
No. C 10-03561 WHA
Google Inc. requests leave “to file a Daubert motion on certain aspects of the revised
17
damages report of Oracle’s damages expert Dr. Iain Cockburn” (Dkt. No. 450). At the hearing on
18
Google’s summary judgment motion regarding the copyright claim, Google was instructed that its
19
arguments to disqualify Dr. Cockburn’s second damages study should be raised as one of
20
Google’s motions in limine (Dkt. No. 445 at 67). Google, however, now “seeks leave to file this
21
Daubert motion separately, rather than as one of its five motions in limine, largely because of
22
timing” (Dkt. No. 450 at 3). Specifically, “Google asks for a briefing schedule allowing Google
23
to file its motion after Cockburn’s deposition, which will follow his reply report, now due on
24
October 10” and which “would allow the Court to resolve this issue before a December 2011
25
damages trial” (ibid.).
26
Oracle America, Inc. opposes Google’s request (Dkt. No. 452). After the parties served
27
their motions in limine, Oracle reported that one of Google’s motions in limine raised Oracle’s
28
proposed critiques of the damages report, supposedly rendering Google’s précis request moot
1
(Dkt. No. 463). In response, Google explained that the motion in limine was intended to preserve
2
its challenges, and that a later schedule for briefing and hearing its Daubert motion was still
3
preferable (Dkt. No. 469).
4
Having considered the submissions from both sides, Google’s request is GRANTED IN
count as one of its motions in limine. The motion, however, need not be resolved at the final
7
pretrial conference on October 17. Supplemental briefing on the motion will be allowed as
8
follows. On OCTOBER 20, 2011, Google may file a supplemental brief based on Dr. Cockburn’s
9
reply report and deposition. On OCTOBER 27, 2011, Oracle may file a responsive supplemental
10
brief. Each supplemental brief is limited to twenty pages, with no more than two hundred pages
11
For the Northern District of California
PART AND DENIED IN PART.
6
United States District Court
5
Google’s Daubert motion directed at the revised damages study will
of supporting materials.
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
Dated: September 27, 2011.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?