Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle International Corporation

Filing 334

ORDER granting Rimini Street Inc's ECF No. 325 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 11/22/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Jeffrey T. Thomas (pro hac vice)
Michele L. Maryott (pro hac vice)
Joseph A. Gorman (pro hac vice)
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Samuel Liversidge (pro hac vice)
Eric D. Vandevelde (pro hac vice)
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
Robert H. Reckers (pro hac vice)
600 Travis Street, Suite 3400
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
RIMINI STREET, INC.
Daniel B. Winslow (pro hac vice)
6601 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 300
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
John P. Reilly (pro hac vice)
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Suite 500
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS
W. West Allen (Nevada Bar No. 5566)
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1000
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant
Rimini Street, Inc., and Counterdefendant
Seth Ravin

18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

19
20

RIMINI STREET, INC., a Nevada corporation,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

Plaintiff,
v.
ORACLE INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, a California corporation,
Defendant.

1
2

ORACLE AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and ORACLE INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, a California corporation,

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Case No. 2:14-cv-01699-LRH-CWH

Counterclaimants,

RIMINI STREET INC.’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL
PORTIONS OF RIMINI STREET,
INC.’S ANSWER TO ORACLE’S
SECOND AMENDED
COUNTERCLAIMS

v.
RIMINI STREET, INC., a Nevada corporation;
SETH RAVIN, an individual,
Counterdefendants.

Pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order governing confidentiality of documents entered by
the Court on May 18, 2015 (Dkt. 58, “Protective Order”), Local Rules 10-5(b) and 16.1-4, and Rules
5.2 and 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff and counterdefendant Rimini Street Inc.
and counterdefendant Seth Ravin (collectively, “Rimini”), respectfully move this Court to grant leave
to file under seal portions of Rimini’s Answer to Oracle’s Second Amended Counterclaims (the
“Answer”). A public, redacted version of the Answer was filed on November 10, 2016, and an
unredacted version will subsequently be filed under seal with the Court.
The Protective Order provides that: “Counsel for any Designating Party may designate any
Discovery Material as ‘Confidential Information’ or ‘Highly Confidential Information – Attorneys’
Eyes Only’ under the terms of this Protective Order only if such counsel in good faith believes that
such Discovery Material contains such information and is subject to protection under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 26(c). The designation by any Designating Party of any Discovery Material as
‘Confidential Information’ or ‘Highly Confidential Information – Attorneys’ Eyes Only’ shall
constitute a representation that any attorney for the Designating Party reasonably believes there is a
valid basis for such designation.” Protective Order ¶ 2 (emphasis added).
Rimini requests that the Court seal portions of Rimini’s Answer because: (1) it cites information
from Oracle America, Inc. and Oracle International Corporation (collectively, “Oracle”)’s discovery
responses or document productions that Oracle has designated as “Confidential Information” or
“Highly Confidential Information – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the terms of the Protective Order;
and (2) the document contains confidential information about Rimini’s proprietary processes.

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

2

1

As to category (1), by designating the information Confidential or Highly Confidential, Oracle

2

has represented that the information cited is subject to protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

3

26(c). Protective Order ¶ 2. Thus Rimini, as the filing party, requests that the portions of Rimini’s

4

Answer containing material designated Confidential or Highly Confidential be filed under seal. Rimini

5

does not independently contend that these portions are subject to such protection, but makes this request

6

as a courtesy to Oracle.

7

As to category (2), Rimini moves to seal portions of the document that disclose proprietary and

8

highly sensitive details about how Rimini provides services to its clients. Disclosure of this proprietary

9

information regarding how Rimini provides services to its clients would provide Rimini’s competitors

10

a direct competitive advantage, disclosing trade secrets that would allow Rimini’s competitors to adopt

11

methods that have made Rimini successful and more easily allow them to compete in the third-party

12

software service marketplace. See Hologram USA, Inc. v. Pulse Evolution Corp., 2015 WL 105793),

13

at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 7, 2015) (granting motion to seal when documents “contain[ed] information that

14

could injure Plaintiffs’ competitive posture in the . . . industry”); Spectrum Pharm. Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,

15

2014 WL 4202540, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 21, 2014) (granting motion to seal where documents contained

16

“proprietary, business practice, trade secret, and technical information that could injure the parties’

17

competitive posture”); Clark v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 2010 WL 1006823, at *1 (D. Nev. Mar. 16, 2010)

18

(granting motion to seal materials that would “bring attention to MetLife’s confidential internal

19

business deliberations, organization and capabilities.”). Moreover, keeping these references under seal

20

will not frustrate the public’s visibility into the judicial process. Although Rimini has redacted certain

21

descriptions of its processes, non-sensitive information contained in these documents remains

22

unredacted. Thus Rimini respectfully moves to seal portions of its Answer.

23

Rimini has submitted all other portions of its Answer for filing in the Court’s public files, which

24

will allow public access to the filing except for the portions containing information that Oracle has

25

designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential or that contain confidential information about

26

Rimini’s proprietary processes. Accordingly, this request to seal is narrowly tailored.

27
28

For the foregoing reasons, Oracle respectfully requests that the Court grant leave to file under
seal portions of Rimini’s Answer.

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

3

1

DATED: November 10, 2016

2

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

3

By:

4
5

/s/ Jeffrey T. Thomas
Jeffrey T. Thomas

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Rimini
Street, Inc., and Counterdefendant Seth Ravin

6
7
8
9
10

November 22,
2016

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1
2

I hereby certify that on this date, I caused to be electronically uploaded a true and correct copy

3

in Adobe “pdf” format of the above document to the United States District Court’s Case Management

4

and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system. After the electronic filing of a document, service is

5

deemed complete upon transmission of the Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) to the registered

6

CM/ECF users. All counsel of record are registered users.

7

DATED: November 10, 2016

8
9
10
11
12

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By: /s/ Jeffrey T. Thomas
Jeffrey T. Thomas
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant
Rimini Street, Inc., and Counterdefendant Seth Ravin

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

5