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)

Download PDF
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?