Oracle America, Inc. et al v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

Filing 422

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 418 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO TAKE LIMITED DISCOVERY AFTER THE FACT DISCOVERY DEADLINE filed by Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on October 24, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Christopher S. Yates (SBN 161273)
Christopher B. Campbell (SBN 254776)
Brittany N. Lovejoy (SBN 286813)
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94111-6538
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.395.8095
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Oracle America, Inc., and Oracle
International Corporation

9
10

JEFFREY T. THOMAS, SBN 106409
[e-mail]
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 949.451.4220
SAMUEL LIVERSIDGE, SBN 180578
[e-mail]
BLAINE H. EVANSON, SBN 254338
[e-mail]
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
Attorneys for Defendant
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.

11
12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16
17
18

ORACLE AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; ORACLE INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, a California corporation

19
20
21
22
23
24

Plaintiffs,
v.
HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1–50,

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-01393-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER BY
DEFENDANT HEWLETT PACKARD
ENTERPRISE COMPANY AND
PLAINTIFFS ORACLE AMERICA
INC. AND ORACLE INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION TO TAKE LIMITED
DISCOVERY AFTER THE FACT
DISCOVERY DEADLINE

Defendants.

25
26
27
28

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CASE SCHEDULE
Case No. 3:16-cv-01393-JST

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiffs Oracle America, Inc. and Oracle International Corporation (together “Oracle”) and
Defendant Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“HPE”) (together, the “Parties”) submit the
following joint stipulation in response to the Court’s October 16, 2017 order entered by Magistrate
Judge Laporte concerning a Joint Discovery Letter Brief submitted by the Parties pursuant to Local
Rule 37-3 (the “October 16 Order”):
WHEREAS, fact discovery in this matter closed on October 2, 2017 (ECF No. 312);
WHEREAS, Local Rule 37-3 permits the parties to submit motions to compel discovery “7
days after the discovery cut-off”;
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2017, the Parties submitted a Joint Discovery Letter Brief wherein
HPE sought to compel Oracle to produce documents and deposition testimony from Mark Hurd and
Oracle sought to compel HPE to produce documents and deposition testimony from Meg Whitman
(ECF No. 354);
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2017, Magistrate Judge Laporte issued an Order on the Parties’
Joint Discovery Letter Brief (ECF No. 394);
WHEREAS, the October 16 Order requires Oracle to do the following: “Within two weeks,
Oracle shall search the collection of Hurd documents described in the parties’ joint letter brief and
produce any non-privileged documents that result, with any redacted documents and a privilege log
covering all redacted or withheld-in-full documents to follow shortly thereafter.” (id.);
WHEREAS, the October 16 Order further requires Oracle to “produce Hurd for a deposition,
on a date that is mutually acceptable to the parties. The deposition is limited to 4 hours and to Hurd’s
knowledge of customers’ rationales for leaving or returning to Oracle. The parties should agree to
extend the deposition if solid justification appears.” (id.);
WHEREAS, the October 16 Order requires HPE to, “within one week, . . . produce the emails
between Whitman and an HPE customer, referred to in the parties’ joint letter brief at page 9, as
originally exchanged.” (id.);
WHEREAS, the aforementioned discovery ordered in the October 16 Order will take place
after the discovery cutoff of October 2, 2017, and Judge Laporte instructed the Parties to “seek leave

28

1
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CASE SCHEDULE
Case No. 3:16-cv-01393-JST

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

of the District Judge to take this discovery after the fact discovery deadline.” (id.);
WHEREAS, in light of Judge Laporte’s October 16 Order, good cause exists to permit this
limited discovery after the fact discovery cutoff;
WHEREAS, for the avoidance of doubt, the Parties are not proposing an extension of the fact
discovery period; rather, the Parties are merely seeking this Court’s approval to exchange discovery
after the fact discovery cutoff as ordered by Judge Laporte, and as anticipated by the Local Rules;
WHEREAS, nothing in this stipulation shall be interpreted as any waiver of the Parties’ rights
to relief from Judge Laporte’s October 16 Order;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate and request that the Court permit the Parties
to exchange the discovery ordered by Judge Laporte in the October 16 Order by the dates set forth in
that Order.

12
13
14

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: October 20, 2017

15

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By:

/s/ Samuel G. Liversidge
Samuel G. Liversidge
Attorneys for Defendant
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

16
17
18

Dated: October 20, 2017

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

19
By: _ /s/ Christopher S. Yates_____________
Christopher S. Yates
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Oracle America, Inc. and Oracle International
Corporation

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: October 24, 2017

By:______________________________
THE HONORABLE JON S. TIGAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

2
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CASE SCHEDULE
Case No. 3:16-cv-01393-JST