Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 553

ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY CONFERENCE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on November 18, 2009. (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. v. SAP AG, et al., Defendants. / ORACLE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C-07-01658 PJH (EDL) ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY CONFERENCE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA On November 17, 2009, this Court held a discovery conference in this matter. As stated at the hearing, the Court makes the following order: 1. Defendants recently propounded over 700 Requests for Admissions. The number of Requests is burdensome given the time remaining before the December 4, 2009 discovery cutoff date, especially given the amount of discovery already scheduled. Therefore, Defendants may re-serve a total of 500 Requests of their choice. Defendants recently served twenty-one individual deposition notices and four Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices. The number of depositions is burdensome given the limited time remaining for discovery. Therefore, Defendants shall have twenty-five hours total for individual and Rule 30(b)(6) depositions to be divided among individual and Rule 30(b)(6) deponents as Defendants choose. On a rolling basis, and by no later than November 19, 2009, Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs the names of the deponents and the number of hours for which each witness will be deposed. In preparation for these depositions, Plaintiffs shall provide more detailed information as to the relevant substance of the witnesses' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. knowledge (e.g., that Plaintiffs' experts are relying on), and Defendants shall provide information to Plaintiffs regarding the limited scope of the intended questions. Plaintiffs shall provide forthwith an index of documents in the possession of Folger & Levin that are responsive to Defendants' request for discovery regarding the 2003 action in Alameda County Superior Court. Defendants' request for documents from custodian Dorian Daley, one of Plaintiffs' litigation counsel, is denied. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have improperly designated the total amount of damages in this case as highly confidential and ask that it be designated confidential instead. The Court notes that allowing access to the amount of damages, but not necessarily the supporting calculations, by all decision-makers is appropriate at this stage of the litigation, especially prior to the next settlement conference. The declarations provided by Defendants regarding the search for certain supervisory board documents are not adequate. Specifically, Mr. Plattner's declaration fails to state that he searched his own documents or that he searched for meeting minutes. Mr. Junge's declaration fails to state whether he asked all other Supervisory Board members for responsive documents. Also, he fails to give the "the locations where any presentations to the SAP AG Supervisory Board would be kept." See Discovery Conference Statement Ex. L at 3. Further, the Court is troubled by Mr. Junge's hearsay statement regarding what Mr. Plattner stated during a telephone call. See id. 4. Therefore, Defendants shall provide more detailed declarations. No later than November 24, 2009, Defendants shall inform Plaintiffs as to when the declarations will be produced. Defendants shall endeavor to produce the declarations no later than November 30, 2009. No later than December 11, 2009, the parties may each file one motion to compel. As the parties proposed, the motions shall contain no more than three issues each and shall be limited to thirty pages each. The parties identified two of the three issues for each of their motions at the discovery conference, and the parties shall identify the third issue to opposing counsel no later than December 4, 2009. Oppositions shall be limited to thirty pages, and 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 replies shall be limited to fifteen pages. The motions shall be heard on January 26, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 18, 2009 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge 3

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?