Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 510

Declaration of REID MULLEN in Support of #507 Joint Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed byGoogle Inc.. (Related document(s) #507 ) (Kamber, Matthias) (Filed on 10/8/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
ROBERT A. VAN NEST - #84065
[e-mail]
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON - #184325
[e-mail]
DANIEL PURCELL - #191424
[e-mail]
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone:
415.391.5400
Facsimile:
415.397.7188

KING & SPALDING LLP
DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. - #112279
[e-mail]
CHERYL A. SABNIS - #224323
[e-mail]
101 Second St., Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

KING & SPALDING LLP
SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
ROBERT F. PERRY
[e-mail]
BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice)
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

IAN C. BALLON - #141819
[e-mail]
HEATHER MEEKER - #172148
[e-mail]
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1900 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

18
19

Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,

20
21

v.

22

GOOGLE INC.,

23
24

DECLARATION OF REID MULLEN IN
SUPPORT OF JOINT
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
Judge:

Hon. William Alsup

Date Comp. Filed:

October 27, 2010

Trial Date:

Defendant.

October 31, 2011

25
26
27
28

584152.01

DECLARATION OF REID MULLEN IN SUPPORT OF JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA

1

I, Reid Mullen, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am an associate in the law firm of Keker & Van Nest LLP, counsel to Google

3

Inc. (“Google”) in the present case. I submit this declaration in support of the parties’ Joint

4

Administrative Motion to Seal. I have knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called to

5

testify as a witness thereto could do so competently under oath.

6

2.

Portions of Google’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1-5 quote or describe material that

7

Google has designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

8

ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” pursuant to the Order Approving Stipulated Protective Order

9

Subject to Stated Conditions [Dkt. No. 68] governing this case. Google does not disclose the

10

designated material (described in further detail below) to the public in the normal course of

11

business. Disclosure of this material would cause great and undue harm to Google’s business.

12

3.

Portions of Oracle’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1-5 quote or describe material that

13

Google has designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

14

ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” pursuant to the Order Approving Stipulated Protective Order

15

Subject to Stated Conditions [Dkt. No. 68] governing this case. Google does not disclose the

16

designated material (described in further detail below) to the public in the normal course of

17

business. Disclosure of this material would cause great and undue harm to Google’s business.

18

4.

Portions of Oracle’s Oppositions to Google’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1-5 quote or

19

describe material that Google has designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY

20

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” pursuant to the Order Approving Stipulated

21

Protective Order Subject to Stated Conditions [Dkt. No. 68] governing this case. Google does

22

not disclose the designated material (described in further detail below) to the public in the

23

normal course of business. Disclosure of this material would cause great and undue harm to

24

Google’s business.

25

5.

Exhibit E to the Declaration of Daniel P. Muino in Support of Oracle America,

26

Inc.’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1 through 5 (“Muino Decl.”) contains excerpts from the deposition

27

transcript of Andrew Rubin taken on July 27, 2011 in this matter. Google designated those

28

exceprts HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because they contain
1

584152.01

DECLARATION OF REID MULLEN IN SUPPORT OF JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA

1
2

detailed information about Google’s product design and development.
6.

Exhibit F to the Muino Decl. contains excerpts from the deposition transcript of

3

Daniel Bornstein taken on May 16, 2011 in this matter. Google designated those excerpts

4

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because they contain detailed

5

information about Google’s product design and development.

6

7.

Exhibit K to the Muino Decl. contains excerpts from the deposition transcript of

7

Patrick Brady taken on July 21, 2011 in this matter. Google designated those excerpts HIGHLY

8

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because they contain detailed information

9

about Google’s product development.

10

8.

Exhibit P to the Muino Decl. is a document produced by Google bearing bates

11

number GOOGLE-12-100000011. This document is a version of the August 6, 2010 email from

12

Tim Lindholm, which is the subject of Google’s motion for relief from Magistrate Judge Ryu’s

13

nondispositive pretrial order in this case. All versions of the Lindholm email and drafts thereof

14

are marked “PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION / ATTORNEY

15

WORK PRODUCT,” and are designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S

16

EYE’S ONLY” pursuant to the Order approving Stipulated Protective Order Subject to Stated

17

Conditions [Dkt. No. 68] governing this case. The Lindholm email contains privileged

18

information about Google’s investigation of and potential responses to Oracle’s infringement

19

claims. But even leaving aside whether the email is privileged, Google also considers the

20

information contained in the email to be highly confidential under the standard set forth in the

21

protective order in this case. Under no circumstances would Google publicly disclose during the

22

normal course of business, or absent a direct court order, any information about its litigation

23

strategy or potential responses to claims asserted against it. Public disclosure of this information

24

would cause significant and undue harm to Google’s business.

25

9.

Exhibit Q to the Muino Decl. contains excerpts from the deposition transcript of

26

Tim Lindholm taken on September 7, 2011in this matter. Google designated those excerpts

27

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYE’S ONLY because they contain detailed

28

information about Google’s product development and design and about the Lindholm email,
2

584152.01

DECLARATION OF REID MULLEN IN SUPPORT OF JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA

1

which is the subject of Google’s Motion for Relief from Magistrate Judge Ryu’s nondispositive

2

pretrial order in this case. For all the reasons in Paragraph 8 above, that exhibit should be sealed.

3

10.

Exhibit 1-1 to the Declaration of Ruchika Agrawal in Support of Oracle America,

4

Inc.’s Oppositions to Google’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1-5 (“Agrawal Decl.”) contains excerpts

5

from the deposition transcript of Tim Lindholm. Google designated those excerpts HIGHLY

6

CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because they contain discussion of Google’s

7

internal response to the threatened litigation.

8
9

11.

Exhibit 1-2 to the Agrawal Decl. is a document produced by Google in this case

bearing production number GOOGLE-12-00000115. Google designated the document HIGHLY

10

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because it contains detailed information

11

about Google’s internal product strategy.

12

12.

Exhibit 1-3 to the Agrawal Decl. is a document produced by Google in this case

13

bearing production number GOOGLE-14-00001233. Google designated the document HIGHLY

14

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because it contains detailed information

15

about Google’s internal product strategy.

16

13.

Exhibit 1-4 to the Agrawal Decl. is a document produced by Google in this case

17

bearing bates numbers GOOGLE-00001772 through Google-00-00001781. Google designated

18

the document HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because it contains

19

detailed information about Google’s internal product strategy.

20

14.

Exhibit 1-5 to the Agrawal Decl. is a document produced by Google in this case

21

bearing production numbers GOOGLE-12-00000472 through GOOGLE-12-00000476. Google

22

designated the document HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because it

23

contains detailed information about Google’s internal product strategy.

24

15.

Exhibit 1-6 to the Agrawal Decl. is a document produced by Google in this case

25

bearing production number GOOGLE-12-00000656. Google designated the document

26

CONFIDENTIAL because it contains detailed information about Google’s internal product

27

development strategy.

28

16.

Exhibit 1-7 to the Agrawal Decl. is a document produced by Google in this case
3

584152.01

DECLARATION OF REID MULLEN IN SUPPORT OF JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA

1

bearing production number GOOGLE-12-00018231. Google designated the Document

2

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because it contains detailed

3

information about Google’s internal product strategy.

4

17.

Exhibit 1-8 to the Agrawal Decl. is a document produced by Google in this case

5

bearing production number GOOGLE 01-00018836. Google designated the Document

6

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because it contains detailed

7

information about Google’s internal product strategy.

8

18.

Exhibit 1-9 to the Agrawal Decl. is a document produced by Google in this case

9

bearing production numbers GOOGLE-12-00078864 through GOOGLE-12-00078865. Google

10

designated the Document HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because

11

it contains detailed information about Google’s internal product strategy and development.

12

19.

Exhibit 1-10 is a document produced by Google in this case bearing production

13

number GOOGLE-12-10000011. The document is another version of the Lindholm email, which

14

is the subject of Google’s motion for relief from Magistrate Judge Ryu’s nondispositive pretrial

15

order in this case. For all the reasons in Paragraph 8 above, that exhibit should be sealed.

16

20.

Exhibit 2-3 to the Agrawal Decl. is a document produced by Google in this case

17

bearing production numbers GOOGLE-04-00055098 through GOOGLE-04-00055099. Google

18

designated the document HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because it

19

contains detailed information about Google’s internal product strategy and development.

20

21.

Exhibit 2-4 to the Agrawal Decl. contains excerpts of the transcript of the

21

deposition of Daniel Morrill taken on July 12, 2011. Those excerpts are designated HIGHLY

22

CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because they contain detailed nonpublic

23

information about Google’s internal product design and development.

24

22.

Exhibit 2-5 to the Agrawal Decl. contains excerpts from the Opening Expert

25

Report of John C. Mitchell Regarding Patent Infringement, dated August 8, 2011. That

26

document is designated HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because it

27

contains detailed nonpublic information about Google’s product design and development.

28

23.

Exhibit 2-14 to the Agrawal Decl. is a document produced by Google in this case
4

584152.01

DECLARATION OF REID MULLEN IN SUPPORT OF JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA

1

bearing production numbers GOOGLE-02-00465974 through GOOGLE-02-00465975. Google

2

designated the document HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because it

3

contains detailed information about Google’s internal product strategy and development.

4

24.

Exhibit 2-15 to the Agrawal Decl. is a document produced by Google in this case

5

bearing production numbers GOOGLE-06-00238120 through GOOGLE-06-00238121. Google

6

designated the document HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because it

7

contains detailed information about Google’s internal product strategy and development.

8
9

25.

Exhibit 2-16 to the Agrawal Decl. is a document produced by Google in this case

bearing production number GOOGLE-04-00083077. Google designated the document HIGHLY

10

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because it contains detailed information

11

about Google’s internal product strategy and development.

12

26.

Exhibit 3-4 to the Agrawal Decl. is a document produced by Google in this case

13

bearing production number GOOGLE-01-00065669. Google designated the document HIGHLY

14

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because it contains nonpublic information

15

about Google’s business strategy.

16

27.

Exhibit 3-6 to the Agrawal Decl. contains excerpts from a document produced by

17

Google in this case bearing production number GOOGLE-26-00031474–497. Google

18

designated the document HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because it

19

contains nonpublic information about Google’s business strategy.

20

28.

Exhibit 3-7 to the Agrawal Decl. is a document produced by Google in this case

21

bearing production number GOOGLE-01-00017222–227. Google designated the document

22

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because it contains nonpublic

23

information about Google’s business strategy.

24

29.

Exhibit 3-8 to the Agrawal Decl. is a document produced by Google in this case

25

bearing production number GOOGLE-58-00029945. Google designated the document HIGHLY

26

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY because it contains nonpublic information

27

about Google’s business strategy.

28

30.

Exhibit 5-4 to the Agrawal Decl. contains excerpts of the transcript of the
5

584152.01

DECLARATION OF REID MULLEN IN SUPPORT OF JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA

1

deposition of Rafael Camargo, taken September 8, 2011. Those excerpts have been designated

2

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY, and contain detailed information

3

about Google’s product design and development.

4

31.

Exhibit 10 to the Declaration of Daniel Purcell (“Purcell Decl.”) in Support of

5

Google’s Motions in Limine contains excerpts of the transcript of the deposition of John C.

6

Mitchell, taken September 6, 2011. Those excerpts contain confidential excerpts of the

7

Summary of Investigation for Damages Expert by Seeon Birger, dated September 12, 2011.

8

Those excerpts are designated HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY

9

because they contain detailed information about Google’s product design.

10

32.

Exhibit 15 to the Purcell Decl. contains excerpts of the Expert Report of Dr. Iain

11

M. Cockburn, dated September 12, 2011 and revised September 15, 2011. The excerpts contain

12

confidential and highly confidential information about Google’s financial data.

13

33.

Exhibit 30 to the Purcell Decl. contains an exhibit to the Expert Report of Dr. Iain

14

M. Cockburn, dated September 12, 2011 and revised September 15, 2011. This exhibit contains

15

confidential information about Google’s financial data.

16

34.

Exhibit 32 to the Purcell Decl. contains an exhibit to the Expert Report of Dr. Iain

17

M. Cockburn, dated September 12, 2011 and revised September 15, 2011. This exhibit contains

18

confidential and highly confidential information about Google’s financial data and product

19

development and strategy.

20
21
22

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
declaration was executed at San Francisco, California on October 7, 2011.

23
24

By:

/s/ Reid Mullen
REID MULLEN

25
26
27
28
6
584152.01

DECLARATION OF REID MULLEN IN SUPPORT OF JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA