Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
694
FURTHER RULINGS REGARDING COMMENTS ON FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER re #692 Response ( Non Motion ) filed by Google Inc., #690 Response ( Non Motion ) filed by Oracle America, Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on January 12, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2012)
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
15
16
No. C 10-03561 WHA
Plaintiff,
v.
FURTHER RULINGS
REGARDING COMMENTS ON
FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
/
The submissions regarding the final pretrial order have been reviewed. Before a trial date
17
will be set, the issue of damages methodology must be finally sorted out. Put differently, the
18
Court will not set a trial date until Oracle adopts a proper damages methodology, even assuming a
19
third try is allowed (or unless Oracle waives damages beyond those already allowed to go to the
20
jury). For this “delay,” Oracle has no one to blame but itself, given that twice now it has
21
advanced improper methodologies obviously calculated to reach stratospheric numbers. Another
22
roadblock to setting a trial date is the pending petition for writ of mandate over the email. If
23
Oracle will waive reliance on that email, then this roadblock would vanish. Counsel must
24
remember that many other trials in other cases have already been set, and continue to be set on a
25
weekly basis, over a period extending into next year.
26
As for the time limits, counsel should be aware that as now framed, the trial will take two
27
months, not 19 days. This the Court knows from experience. The time limits set are almost
28
double the maximum ever used in any trial in the judge’s 12-plus years on the bench. We must
1
also allow for three sets of deliberations. The judge is convinced that adequate time has been
2
allotted.
3
As for alleged witness inconvenience, it must be endured. The Court will not be able to
4
continue the trial each day past one p.m. for the sole purpose of taking testimony out of the
5
presence of the jury for playback to the jury later. The Court’s docket will not permit this luxury.
6
Also, it is better if the jury sees and hears the witnesses fresh each time. If need be, the Court will
7
order witnesses to return. This, of course, is a problem only for witnesses who genuinely will
8
have evidence relevant solely to multiple phases.
9
Phase One will be decided on an item-by-item basis.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
The extent to which willfulness evidence will be allowed on the equitable defenses in
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated: January 12, 2012.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?