From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oracle America, Inc. v. Micron Tech. Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Nov 18, 2011
Case No. 10-cv-04340 PJH (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 10-cv-04340 PJH

11-18-2011

ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants.

Jerome A. Murphy (pro hac vice) David D. Cross (pro hac vice) Matthew J. McBurney (pro hac vice) CROWELL & MORING LLP Suzanne E. Rode (CA Bar No. 253830) CROWELL & MORING LLP Counsel for Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc.


Jerome A. Murphy (pro hac vice)

David D. Cross (pro hac vice)

Matthew J. McBurney (pro hac vice)

CROWELL & MORING LLP

Suzanne E. Rode (CA Bar No. 253830)

CROWELL & MORING LLP

Counsel for Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PROCEDURE

FOR STIPULATION OF AUTHENTICITY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS


Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton

Plaintiff and Defendants, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and move the Court to enter as an Order, the following agreement with regard to a procedure for the stipulation of documents as authentic pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901 and for evidentiary foundation required for the admissibility of documents, including as business records pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).

WHEREAS, the Parties believe that it will promote the efficient conduct of this litigation to meet and confer and attempt to reach agreement, where possible, regarding the authenticity and admissibility of documents that the Parties may wish to introduce in connection with summary judgment motions or at trial, and

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the process of conferring regarding the authenticity and admissibility of such documents may continue after the close of the fact discovery period,

THEREFORE, the undersigned counsel for the Parties hereby STIPULATE and AGREE as follows:

1. Following the close of fact discovery on December 16, 2011, the parties shall continue to meet and confer in an effort to reach agreement concerning the authenticity and the evidentiary foundation required for the admissibility of documents produced by the parties and third parties in the course of this proceeding;

2. In the event that the parties are unable to agree whether particular documents produced by either of the Parties will be stipulated to as authentic or admissible, counsel for each Party shall have the right to take a deposition of an appropriate representative of the other Party, such as a document custodian pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), and inquire regarding whether particular documents meet the foundational requirements to qualify as authentic and admissible, without regard to the presumptive limit on the number or length of depositions provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

3. Notwithstanding the Scheduling Order in place in this matter, such depositions may take place at any time prior to the date on which the Final Pretrial Order is entered, or whenever a final list of trial exhibits is due, whichever is later.

SO STIPULATED and respectfully submitted this 16th day of November, 2011.

+------------------------------------------------------+ ¦GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP¦CROWELL & MORING LLP ¦ +---------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦JOEL S. SANDERS ¦JEROME A. MURPHY ¦ +---------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦By: /s/ Joel S. Sanders ¦By: /s/ Jerome A. Murphy ¦ +---------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦Joel S. Sanders ¦Jerome A. Murphy ¦ +---------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦Attorney for Defendants ¦Attorney for Plaintiff ¦ +---------------------------+--------------------------¦ ¦MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR ¦ORACLE AMERICA, INC. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PRODUCTS, INC. ¦ ¦ +------------------------------------------------------+

ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE IN FILING

In accordance with the Northern District of California's General Order No. 45, Section X.(B), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the signatories who are listed above.

Jerome A. Murphy

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Based upon the stipulation of the parties and for good cause shown, the foregoing is hereby SO ORDERED:

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton


Summaries of

Oracle America, Inc. v. Micron Tech. Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Nov 18, 2011
Case No. 10-cv-04340 PJH (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2011)
Case details for

Oracle America, Inc. v. Micron Tech. Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and MICRON…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Date published: Nov 18, 2011

Citations

Case No. 10-cv-04340 PJH (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2011)