Opinion
Case No. 5:13-cv-03385-PSG
03-31-2015
ORACLE AMERICA, INC. et al., Plaintiffs, v. TERIX COMPUTER COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants.
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES
(Re: Docket Nos. 414, 418, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 524, 525, 527, 528, 536, 574)
Before the court are 14 (!) letter briefs on various discovery disputes among the parties. In the interest of resolving these disputes in a timely fashion, the court foregoes a lengthy recitation of the facts and legal standards and instead simply rules as follows:
| Docket No. | Issue | Ruling | Reason/Explanation |
| 414 | Oracle RFP Nos. 76-78 | GRANTED | Oracle is entitled to broader information than already provided to identify the extent of damages Maintech is claiming. That the information may not, in Maintech's view, be reliable is not a justification to withhold responsive documents. |
| 414 | Oracle's 3rd Set of RFPs from January 1, 2008 forward | GRANTED | Oracle is entitled to documents from January 1, 2008 to investigate the alleged effects of the change in policy. The two months currently provided is insufficient. Maintech chose to bring these counterclaims and cannot now refuse to produce documents relevant |
| to those claims because it is burdensome. | |||
| 418 | Any Terix claim that Oracle's damages calculations are speculative | DENIED | Terix produced the requested information. Given that the production was well in advance of trial and that much of the production was already in Oracle's hands prior to the production, the court does not find that Terix's delay prejudices Oracle. |
| 517 | Oracle Interrogatory 15 | DENIED | The request is moot in light of Terix's representation that the underlying claim is no longer in the case. |
| 517 | Oracle Interrogatories 22 25, 36 | DENIED | The requested information is properly the subject of expert inquiry, particularly information about potential customers. |
| 517 | Oracle Interrogatory 33 | GRANTED | A party cannot refuse to respond to an interrogatory merely because the other party may have learned the information by means of other |
| 517 | Oracle RFAs 32, 34-35 | GRANTED | Oracle is entitled to clear admissions or denials. Terix's responses provide neither. |
| 518 | Oracle 30(b)(6) Deposition re Topics 8, 11, 19, 20 | GRANTED | Oracle is entitled to a 30(b)(6) deposition on the requested topics in light of Defendants' antitrust counterclaims, which were not asserted at the time of the previous 30(b)(6) deposition. |
| 518 | Oracle Interrogatory 12 | DENIED | The request is moot in light of Maintech's representation that the underlying claim is no longer in the case. |
| 518 | Oracle Interrogatories 15, 17 | DENIED | The parties did not sufficiently meet and confer to determine what further information—if any—is required in response to these interrogatories. |
| 518 | Oracle Interrogatory 25 | GRANTED | Interrogatory responses may not incorporate by reference information |
| 521 | Terix Interrogatory 32 | GRANTED IN-PART | Oracle has represented that it has produced everything it has that is responsive to the request. Oracle shall amend its response to reflect this representation. |
| 522 | Spoliation | DENIED | Terix has failed to show that that Oracle's conduct rises to the level of Even if Oracle reasonable anticipated litigation when the site at issue was taken down, Terix has failed to show that it would gain any additional relevant information by gaining access to My Oracle Support or Oracle.com beyond what Oracle has already produced. And unfettered access to |
| 524 | Maintech Financial Documents | GRANTED | Oracle is entitled to (1) un-excerpted copies of the quarterly CFO package reports for 2008-2014 and (2) un excerpted copies of the monthly financial overview reports for 2008 2014. Maintech may produce the information with an Attorneys' Eyes Only confidentiality designation pursuant to the protective order in this case. If necessary, upon review of the new documents, Oracle may re-open Whitney's 30(b)(6) deposition for up to two hours and must limit its inquiry to the new documents produced. |
See Bretana v. Int'l Collection Corp., Case No. 07-cv-05934, 2008 WL 4334710, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2008) (citing Davidson v. Goord, 215 F.R.D. 73, 77 (W.D.N.Y. 2003)).
See In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13-md-02420, 2015 WL 1223972, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2015); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d).
See Docket No. 332.
See id.
See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 881 F.Supp. 2d 1132, 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ("A party seeking an adverse inference instruction (or other sanctions) based on the spoliation of evidence must establish the following three elements: (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) that the records were destroyed with a 'culpable state of mind'; and (3) that the evidence was 'relevant' to the party's claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense.") (citing Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)); see also AMC Tech., LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., Case No. 11-cv-03403, 2013 WL 3733390, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013).
See In re Ford Motor Company, 345 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2003) (denying direct access and noting that FRCP 34(a) "allows the responding party to search his records to produce the required, relevant data . . . [but] does not give the requesting party the right to conduct the actual search").
See Haggarty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 10-cv-02416, 2012 WL 4113341, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012) ("In responding to interrogatories, 'a requirement to state all facts does not require a listing [by the responding party] of trivial or non-material matters.'"); S.E.C. v. Berry, Case No. 07-cv-04431, 2011 WL 2441706, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2011) (finding four-page narrative describing the facts in response to an interrogatory seeking all facts and documents sufficient).
While the court notes that Maintech violated the letter briefing procedures set out at Docket No. 316, in the interest of efficiency, the court will consider this round of briefing.
See Docket No. 332 at 2.
The court is granting production of the specific wiki pages referenced during Corwin's deposition and not any type of full database.
Docket No. 527 at 3.
See footnote 8.
See United States v. Chen, 99 F.3d 1495, 1501 (9th Cir. 1996) ("A client is entitled to hire a lawyer, and have his secrets kept, for legal advice regarding the client's business affairs. This principle has long been the law. . . . The attorney-client privilege applies to communications between lawyers and their clients when the lawyers act in a counseling and planning role, as well as when lawyers represent their clients in litigation."); see also Garvey v. Hulu, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-03764, 2015 WL 294850, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2015) (only when such communications are distributed beyond the set of corporate employees who "need to know the content of the communication in order to perform [then] job[s] effectively or to make informed decisions concerning, or affected by, the subject matter of the communication" will the communication lost its protection.").
See footnote 8.
See Docket No. 403.
--------
The parties shall produce all discovery ordered by April 15, 2015. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2015
/s/_________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge