Oracle America, Inc. v. Innovative Technology Distributors, LLC

Filing 45

ORDER re 42 Denying Motion to Expedite Hearing; Setting Expedited Briefing Schedule Regarding Pending Motions. Signed by Judge Koh on 4/18/2011. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN JOSE DIVISION

12

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

13

Plaintiff,
v.

14
15
16

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
DISTRIBUTORS, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-01043-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
EXPEDITE HEARING DATE; AND
SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
REGARDING PENDING MOTIONS

17
18

On April 6, 2011, Defendant Innovative Technology Distributors, LLC (“ITD”) moved to

19

stay, dismiss, or transfer this action to the District of New Jersey on the basis of a “first-filed”

20

action in New Jersey. See Dkt. #36. That motion is noticed for a hearing on July 21, 2011.

21

On April 8, 2011, Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) filed a motion to disqualify

22

attorney Vicky Dal Molin and to disqualify ITD’s outside counsel Lowenstein Sandler PC

23

(“Lowenstein”). See Dkt. #38. According to Oracle, Vicky Dal Molin is ITD’s General Counsel,

24

and formerly an in-house attorney with Sun Microsytems, Inc (“Sun”) for nine years. In January

25

2010, Oracle acquired Sun. Oracle argues that Lowenstein must be disqualified as outside counsel

26

because it “partnered with Ms. Dal Molin to represent ITD against Oracle knowing full well of her

27
28

1
Case No.: 11-cv-1043-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARING; SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE REGARDING
PENDING MOTIONS

1
2

prior attorney-client relationship with Sun and making no effort to avoid receiving Oracle’s
confidential information possessed by Ms. Dal Molin.” Id. at 2.

3
4
5
6

Oracle’s motion to disqualify is also noticed for a hearing on July 21, 2011, but Oracle has
filed a motion for administrative relief to advance the hearing date to June 16, 2011. Oracle’s
motion to expedite the hearing date is DENIED. However, the Court finds an expedited briefing
schedule appropriate for both motions.

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

Accordingly, with respect to ITD’s motion to stay, dismiss, or transfer [dkt. #33], Oracle’s
opposition is due by Wednesday, May 4, 2011, and ITD’s reply is due by Wednesday, May 11,
2011.
With respect to Oracle’s motion to disqualify certain counsel [dkt. #38], ITD’s opposition is
due by Wednesday, May 4, 2011, and Oracle’s reply is due by Wednesday, May 11, 2011.
If the Court determines that either or both of these motions are suitable for determination
without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court will vacate the July 21, 2011
motion hearing date and issue an Order or Orders on the papers.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: April 18, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 11-cv-1043-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARING; SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE REGARDING
PENDING MOTIONS