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