Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
968
ORDER REGARDING FORMAT OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 24, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
No. C 10-03561 WHA
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
/
15
ORDER REGARDING
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE
ALL ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW
THAT MUST BE RESOLVED BY
THE JUDGE, INCLUDING SCOPE
OF PROTECTION OF THE
COPYRIGHTS
16
By NOON ON THE SECOND BUSINESS DAY following the close of evidence in Phase One,
17
both sides shall file proposed findings of fact, each identified by number as to any issue of fact
18
that is for the judge to resolve. Each proposed finding should be concise and limited to one or
19
two or (at most) three lines of text (exclusive of any block quotes from trial exhibits) followed
20
by exact trial record cites fully supporting the proposed finding. The proposals should be at a
21
level of specificity/generality so as to fit within the page limit set forth below. As a rule of
22
thumb, less controverted subjects may be captured in more generalized proposed findings; more
23
controversial subjects, however, usually require greater specificity and more proposed findings.
24
Block quotes and record cites may be single-spaced (and indented) but otherwise the proposals
25
should be double-spaced. Example:
26
1.
When defendant went through the intersection of
27
Hayes and Gough, the light was red in his direction.
28
Jones at RT 97:1–3
Young at RT 15:11–12
1
The same submission should also set forth each proposed conclusion of law. Each
2
proposed conclusion of law must briefly identify the proposed findings of fact supporting the
3
conclusion and the legal authority therefor (quoting the key language of said authority). The
4
overall length of the submission must be 35 pages or less.
5
By NOON THREE CALENDAR DAYS LATER, the opposing side must file and serve a
6
response. The response must state, separately as to each proposed finding, whether the
7
responding party agrees with the proposed finding and if not in full agreement, then the full
8
extent to which, considering the duty of good faith and candor, the responding party admits the
9
proposed finding. To the extent that the responding side objects in any respect to the proposed
finding, it must state (i) the extent to which the opposition is based on a failure of the record
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
cites to support the proposal (explaining why they do not support it) and (ii) the extent to which
12
the objection is based on contrary evidence (citing the contrary evidence) or lack of credibility
13
(citing relevant evidence). Example:
14
15
1.
Agree that the light was red but the light had just
changed a split second before.
16
Mack RT 42:17–18
17
The submission shall similarly state the extent to which the responding party agrees with
18
each conclusion of law proposed by the other side. If there is any disagreement, the responding
19
side must state (i) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the supporting
20
findings, (ii) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the cited authorities to
21
support the conclusion, and (iii) the extent to which contrary authorities contradict the legal
22
basis for the proposed conclusion.
23
The responding submission should reproduce each original finding or conclusion and
24
then, immediately after each, supply the responsive information. It may not exceed twice the
25
overall number of pages used by the submission to which it responds.
26
27
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 24, 2012.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?