Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 509

DECLARATION of RUCHIKA AGRAWAL in Opposition to 496 MOTION in Limine No. 5, 494 MOTION in Limine No. 3, 492 MOTION in Limine No. 1, 493 MOTION in Limine NO. 2, 495 MOTION in Limine No. 4 filed byGoogle Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-1, # 2 Exhibit 1-2, # 3 Exhibit 1-3, # 4 Exhibit 1-4, # 5 Exhibit 1-5, # 6 Exhibit 1-6, # 7 Exhibit 1-7, # 8 Exhibit 1-8, # 9 Exhibit 1-9, # 10 Exhibit 1-10, # 11 Exhibit 1-11, # 12 Exhibit 1-12, # 13 Exhibit 2-1, # 14 Exhibit 2-2, # 15 Exhibit 2-3, # 16 Exhibit 2-4, # 17 Exhibit 2-5, # 18 Exhibit 2-6, # 19 Exhibit 2-7, # 20 Exhibit 2-8, # 21 Exhibit 2-9, # 22 Exhibit 2-10, # 23 Exhibit 2-11, # 24 Exhibit 2-12, # 25 Exhibit 2-13, # 26 Exhibit 2-14, # 27 Exhibit 2-15, # 28 Exhibit 2-16, # 29 Exhibit 2-17, # 30 Exhibit 3-1, # 31 Exhibit 3-2, # 32 Exhibit 3-3, # 33 Exhibit 3-4, # 34 Exhibit 3-5, # 35 Exhibit 3-6, # 36 Exhibit 3-7, # 37 Exhibit 3-8, # 38 Exhibit 3-9, # 39 Exhibit 3-10, # 40 Exhibit 3-11, # 41 Exhibit 4-1, # 42 Exhibit 4-2, # 43 Exhibit 4-3, # 44 Exhibit 5-1, # 45 Exhibit 5-2, # 46 Exhibit 5-3, # 47 Supplement 5-4)(Related document(s) 496 , 494 , 492 , 493 , 495 ) (Kamber, Matthias) (Filed on 10/7/2011)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 1-12 Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 4 5 ------------------------ 6 ORACLE AMERICA, INC., 7 Plaintiff, ) ) 8 vs. ) No. CV 10-03561 WHA 9 GOOGLE, INC., ) 10 11 Defendant. ) ------------------------ 12 13 14 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY 15 16 17 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF HASAN RIZVI 18 THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2011 19 20 21 REPORTED BY: 22 JANIS JENNINGS, CSR 3942, CLR, CCRR 23 24 25 PAGES 1 - 275 Page 1 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 EXHIBIT 1-12 Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 further discussions? A. I don't remember the exact words, but the third discussion itself was, like I said, a non discussion. There was nothing really to discuss, so as we left the meeting, there wasn't anything scheduled as a follow up. Q. Did Mr. Rubin say anything at that third meeting to indicate to Oracle that Google was no longer interested in discussing a potential business solution? A. Again, I don't remember the exact words, but the I don't remember the exact words, no. Q. Did Mr. Rubin give any indication, verbal or otherwise, that Google was not interested in continuing the discussions after that third meeting? A. From what I recall, he said this is again, not necessarily his words, but the implication was that this is a non starter, there is really nothing to discuss given the range of the business that we are talking about. That's the that's the recollection I have. Q. Do you mean that he suggested that it was a non starter for Google to compensate Oracle in the range of $300 to $500 million? A. That's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. Q. Who is that? A. That is that privileged? MR. NORTON: Do you mind if we take a short break? MR. PURCELL: Sure. BY MR. PURCELL: Q. I mean, just so it's clear, I'm not asking anything Oracle's lawyers might have told you. But if you learned of the fact of a meeting between Google and Oracle about a certain subject, the fact of the meeting between Google and Oracle isn't privileged. MR. NORTON: I I think he's already answered that question, though. On to another question about the substance of the communication, if there if there was one, so MR. PURCELL: Well, it would be the substance of the communication between Google and Oracle, which isn't privileged. That's all I want to know. MR. NORTON: Again, I just don't think that was the question. MR. PURCELL: Okay. Well, let me ask let me ask the question, then. Page 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. NORTON: Objection to form. You can answer. THE WITNESS: Yeah. That's kind of the way I remember it, yeah. BY MR. PURCELL: Q. Did Mr. Rubin suggest a different range in which Google might be willing to compensate Oracle? A. Not that I remember, no. Q. Did Oracle attempt to make any follow up with Mr. Rubin after the third meeting prior to the filing of this lawsuit? A. I don't know about Oracle, but I didn't. Q. Are you aware of anyone else from Oracle following up with Mr. Rubin about a potential business solution prior to this lawsuit being filed? MR. NORTON: Objection to form. THE WITNESS: With Mr. Rubin, no. I'm not I don't know who it would I don't know if anybody followed up with Mr. Rubin. BY MR. PURCELL: Q. Are you aware from of strike that. Are you aware of anybody at Oracle following up with anybody at Google regarding a potential business solution prior to this lawsuit being filed? Page 172 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. PURCELL: Q. Are you aware I think you already said you are aware of communications between Oracle and Google after the third meeting you had with Mr. Rubin about a potential business solution; correct? A. Yes. Q. What what was discussed at that meeting between Oracle and Google? A. I don't know. MR. NORTON: Objection. To the extent that your knowledge of the contents of that meeting to the extent you know that only from communications with attorneys, then I'm going to assert the privilege and ask you not to answer that question. MR. PURCELL: Counsel, I don't want to argue with you in detail, but I just think that instruction is overbroad. If he learns of a nonprivileged fact through a lawyer, that doesn't make the fact privileged. And all I'm trying to ask for is the nonprivileged fact regarding the communications between Google and Oracle. MR. NORTON: Let's take a break and I can see if I can Page 171 Page 173 44 (Pages 170 - 173) Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 EXHIBIT 1-12

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?