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)

Download PDF
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?