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
rvannest@kvn.com
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON - #184325
canderson@kvn.com
DANIEL PURCELL - #191424
dpurcell@kvn.com
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone:
415.391.5400
Facsimile:
415.397.7188
KING & SPALDING LLP
DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. - #112279
fzimmer@kslaw.com
CHERYL A. SABNIS - #224323
csabnis@kslaw.com
101 Second St., Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: 415.318.1200
Fax: 415.318.1300
KING & SPALDING LLP
SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER (Pro Hac Vice)
sweingaertner@kslaw.com
ROBERT F. PERRY
rperry@kslaw.com
BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice)
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Tel: 212.556.2100
Fax: 212.556.2222
IAN C. BALLON - #141819
ballon@gtlaw.com
HEATHER MEEKER - #172148
meekerh@gtlaw.com
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1900 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel: 650.328.8500
Fax: 650.328-8508
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
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?