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)
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