Opinion
C.A. No.: 2017-0337-SG
05-07-2020
RE: In re Oracle Corporation Derivative Litigation
Joel Friedlander, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq.
Christopher P. Quinn, Esq.
Bradley P. Lehman, Esq.
FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A.
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
Wilmington, DE 19801 Thomas A. Beck, Esq.
Blake Rohrbacher, Esq.
Susan M. Hannigan, Esq.
Matthew D. Perri, Esq.
Daniel E. Kaprow, Esq.
RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER P.A.
One Rodney Square
920 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801 A. Thompson Bayliss, Esq.
E. Wade Houston, Esq.
ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP
20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200
Wilmington, DE 19807 Andrew S. Dupre, Esq.
MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801 Dear Counsel:
I have reviewed the briefing concerning the NetSuite Defendants' request for a stay of discovery, pending resolution of their Motions to Dismiss, currently under consideration. In the exercise of my discretion, and in light of the state of the litigation as well as the pendency of the Motions to Dismiss, the Motion to Stay is denied. It is appropriate that discovery go forward in this long-pending matter, and I note that the NetSuite Defendants will be key witnesses in the Lead Plaintiff's case regardless of the outcome of the Motions to Dismiss. In the interest of efficiency and fairness, however, discovery of the NetSuite Defendants shall be limited to that appropriate toward non-parties to the action, as though the Motions to Dismiss had been granted. The parties should confer and agree on how to proceed most efficiently in light of this discovery limitation. To the extent they cannot agree, the parties may proceed through motions to compel/for a protective order, consistent with my decision here. Far preferable, however, would be an agreement of the parties as to the breadth of discovery appropriate during the pendency of the Motions to Dismiss.
To the extent the foregoing requires an order to take effect, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,
/s/ Sam Glasscock III
Sam Glasscock III