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

Filing 573

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 572 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE filed by Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. Pretrial motions challenging expert testimony under FRE 702 due 6/27/2018. Responses due by 7/25/201 8. Replies due 8/9/2018. Motion Hearing set for 8/16/2018 at 2:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 9, 19th Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Pretrial conference statement due 1/29/2019. Pretrial Conference set for 2/8/2019 at 2:00 PM in Oakland, Co urtroom 2, 4th Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Jury Trial set for 3/4/2019 - 3/26/2018 at 8:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 9, 19th Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on May 23, 2018. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

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]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Oracle America, Inc., and Oracle
International Corporation

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 PLAINTIFFS
ORACLE AMERICA INC. AND
ORACLE INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION AND DEFENDANT
HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
COMPANY REGARDING CASE
SCHEDULE

Defendants.

25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CASE SCHEDULE
Case No. 3:16-cv-01393-JST

1

Plaintiffs Oracle America, Inc. and Oracle International Corporation (together “Oracle”) and

2

Defendant Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“HPE”) (together, the “Parties”) submit the

3

following joint stipulation and request that the Court make certain adjustments to the current case

4

schedule, as detailed below:

5
6

WHEREAS, the Court entered a Scheduling Order on August 8, 2017 (Dkt. No. 312) (hereafter,
“Scheduling Order”) setting a trial date for October 29, 2018;

7

WHEREAS, due to certain conflicts, including conflicts in the calendar of HPE’s lead trial

8

counsel, HPE requested that Oracle agree to a short continuance of the trial date to a date in early 2019

9

(ideally late February or March);

10
11
12
13
14
15

WHEREAS, Oracle agreed to a short continuance provided that it works with the Court’s
schedule and does not result in a trial date later than March 2019;
WHEREAS, the Parties contacted the Court and understand that the Court has availability in
early 2019;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree to a trial date of March 4, 2019, and a pre-trial conference date
of February 8, 2019, subject to the Court’s availability;

16

WHEREAS, the Parties also intend to file motions challenging the testimony of the other

17

Party’s expert(s) before trial, and believe that setting a briefing schedule for such motions will assist

18

with the orderly preparation of this case for trial;

19

WHEREAS, the Parties agree to the following briefing schedule and hearing date for pretrial

20

motions challenging under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 the opinions of expert witnesses served on or

21

before the date of this Order: (1) motions shall be filed on or before June 27, 2018 with a noticed

22

hearing date of August 16, 2018; (2) oppositions to the motions shall be filed on or before July 25,

23

2018; and (3) replies in support of the motions shall be filed on or before August 9, 2018;

24

WHEREAS, the Parties’ agreement herein is not intended to limit the Parties’ ability to raise

25

any challenges to expert testimony during pretrial proceedings or during trial, to the extent such

26

challenges would otherwise be permitted under applicable law;

27
28

WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred and agreed upon the following revised
deadlines:
1
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CASE SCHEDULE
Case No. 3:16-cv-01393-JST

1

Event

2
3

Current Deadline

Revised Deadline

Deadline to file
dispositive motions

13
14
15
16
17

July 25, 2018

None set.

August 9, 2018

None set.

August 16, 2018 at 2:00
p.m.

July 23, 2018

January 29, 2019

September 7, 2018 at
2:00 p.m.

February 8, 2019 at 2:00
p.m.

Trial

12

None set.

Pretrial conference

11

June 27, 2018

Pretrial conference
statement due

10

None set.

Hearing on pretrial
motions challenging
expert testimony

9

May 25, 2018

Replies in support of
pretrial motions
challenging expert
testimony due

8

May 25, 2018

Oppositions to pretrial
motions challenging
expert testimony due

7

April 27, 2018

Pretrial motions
challenging expert
testimony under FRE 702
due

6

April 27, 2018

Dispositive motion
replies due

5

February 28, 2018

Dispositive motion
oppositions due

4

February 28, 2018

October 29, 2018 at 8:30
a.m.

March 4, 2019 at 8:30
a.m.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

NOW, THEREFORE, good cause shown, the parties hereby respectfully request that the
Court:
(1)

Modify the Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 312), and adopt the revised deadlines shown
above.

2

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

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

2
3

Dated: May 23, 2018

4

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By:

5

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

6
7
8

Dated: May 23, 2018

9

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
By:

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

10
11
12
13

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: May 23, 2018

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

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

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

1

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

2

I, Samuel G. Liversidge, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to

3

file the foregoing letter. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I attest that

4

concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained.

5
6
7

Dated: May 23, 2018

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
By:

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

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

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