Garrison v. Oracle Corporation

Filing 144

ORDER Requiring Supplemental Briefing. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 12/17/2015. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

GREG GARRISON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 14-CV-04592-LHK
ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

v.
ORACLE CORPORATION,
Defendant.

17
18

In briefing Oracle’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the parties agreed that, under

19

the default accrual rules, “the applicable statutes of limitations began to run in May 2007 (i.e.,

20

when Plaintiff alleges Oracle and Google entered into the Agreement).” Garrison v. Oracle

21

Corp., No. 14-CV-04592-LHK, 2015 WL 849517, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2015). In the Second

22

Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege new Secret Agreements, in addition to the alleged

23

agreement between Oracle and Google. Highlighting these new agreements, Oracle argues that

24

Plaintiffs’ claims accrued, according to the default accrual rules, by 2009, which is the latest date

25

that Plaintiffs allege that Oracle entered a specific Secret Agreement. ECF No. 110, at 7; ECF No.

26

125, at 2. Thus, according to Oracle, the statutes of limitations expired in 2013 absent some form

27

of tolling. ECF No. 125, at 2. Plaintiffs do not dispute Oracle’s argument, see generally ECF No.

28

1
Case No. 14-CV-04592-LHK
ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

1

114, and “assume” that—absent an exception to the default accrual rules or tolling—Plaintiffs’

2

California law claims, at least, accrued in 2007 and the statutes of limitations thus expired by

3

2011, see ECF No. 114, at 12-13. The parties do not dispute that the claims are untimely absent

4

an exception to the default rules or a tolling doctrine.

5

On June 5, 2015, the parties stipulated to adding Plaintiff Sastry Hari, who began working

6

for Oracle in the middle of 2012, as a named plaintiff in the Second Amended Complaint. ECF

7

No. 103. The Court approved the parties’ stipulation the same day. ECF No. 104.

8

The Court requests that the parties brief whether Plaintiff Hari’s employment at Oracle
impacts the statute of limitations analysis. The parties shall file simultaneous briefs of 10 pages

10

by 5:00 p.m. on January 5, 2016. The parties shall file simultaneous replies of 8 pages by 5:00

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

p.m. on January 15, 2016.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: December 17, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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

2
Case No. 14-CV-04592-LHK
ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING