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

Filing 1235

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PREADMIT EXHIBITS 2916 AND 3574; DENYING REQUEST TO PREINSTRUCT RE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND TERIX EXECUTIVE GUILTY PLEAS entered by Judge Jon S. Tigar (Tigar, Jon) (Filed on 5/23/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ORACLE AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-01393-JST

10

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
COMPANY,

11

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PREADMIT EXHIBITS 2916 AND 3574;
DENYING REQUEST TO
PREINSTRUCT RE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS AND TERIX
EXECUTIVE GUILTY PLEAS
Re: ECF Nos. 1220, 1221, 1226

12
13

HPE’s motion in limine to admit trial exhibits 2916 and 3574 is denied without prejudice.

14

While the documents may fall within Rule 803(3)’s hearsay exception, HPE’s motion does not lay

15

an adequate foundation that the documents are authentic. HPE identifies nothing about the emails’

16

“[a]ppearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in

17

conjunction with [the] circumstances” that would support a finding that the emails are what HPE

18

says they are. Jimena v. UBS AG Bank, Inc., No. 1:07-CV-00367 OWW, 2011 WL 2551413, at

19

*4 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2011) (citing Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, 546 (D. Md.

20

2007); Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4), aff’d sub nom. Jimena v. Standish, 504 F. App’x 632 (9th Cir.

21

2013).

22

HPE argues that “the documents contain all the distinctive characteristics of emails,

23

including the senders’ and recipients’ email addresses, the names associated with the email

24

addresses, the senders’ signature blocks, and the date and time of each transmission.” ECF No.

25

1220 at 10. These facts, which characterize most emails, cannot be enough by themselves to

26

establish authenticity, otherwise courts would be required to find virtually all emails authentic;

27

generally, there must be something more that establishes the likelihood that an email is what it

28

purports to be. See Jimena, 2011 WL 2551413, at *4-7 (giving examples). Nor is HPE’s citation

1

to Holmes v. N. Texas Health Care Laundry Coop. Ass’n helpful. 304 F. Supp. 3d 525, 535 n.5

2

(N.D. Tex. 2018). In that case, the party objecting to the admission of the emails had actually

3

produced most of them. Id. Furthermore, at deposition “she did not deny the conversations took

4

place or that the e-mail messages to which she . . . object[ed] were what they purported to be.” Id.

5

There are no facts similar here. HPE’s motion to admit these documents now is therefore denied

6

without prejudice. HPE can seek to have these documents admitted at trial.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

HPE’s requests that the Court preinstruct the jury regarding the statute of limitations and
the the Terix executive guilty pleas are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 23, 2022
_______ ______________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2