As is not uncommon in patent infringement cases like this, the judge has asked the parties to make one more attempt at settlement, this time through court ordered mediation. The big issue has been who would participate in the mediation for each of the parties.
Oracle put forward Safra Catz, President of Oracle Corporation, and Thomas Kurian, Executive Vice President of Oracle Product Development. 401 [PDF] Google countered with Andrew Rubin, Senior Vice President, Mobile (and former head of Android before its acquisition by Google) and Kent Walker, Vice President and General Counsel of Google. 402 [PDF] Both Rubin and Walker report to the Google CEO. On the face of it, these would appear to be reasonably matched teams. Google notes that Rubin is fully empowered to settle the matter, and both Catz and Rubin have been parties to the prior settlement discussions.
But Oracle believes it should be able to dictate who Google sends to the mediation. 404 [PDF] Oracle complains that Rubin is not senior enough, even though he, like Catz, reports to the CEO of his company. Oracle also complains that Rubin was a party to the earlier failed mediation attempts while failing to recognize that the reason those prior mediation attempts may have failed was because Catz was representing Oracle in them. Who knows. But it takes a lot of chutzpah to try to dictate the other side's negotiating team.
In response to all of this Judge Alsup appointed a magistrate 405 [PDF] to serve as the mediator and strongly recommended the magistrate order Larry Ellison of Oracle and Larry Page of Google to directly participate in the mediation along with the officers identified by the parties. And, right on cue, the magistrate has ordered both to appear. 416 [PDF] Oh, brother!
The first thing you should understand about a mediation is that it is non-binding. Parties can choose to be as cooperative or uncooperative as they wish to be. A skilled mediator will quickly learn early in the session whether the parties are serious about trying to settle the case even if they are leagues apart on what they believe is an appropriate settlement.
The second thing is whatever is said during a mediation/settlement conference is confidential and may not be brought up at trial. This encourages candor during the discussions, but it also means that anything short of a complete settlement really does not resolve anything. In other words, if during the settlement discussions the parties agree on some of the underlying issues, the fact that they agree cannot be raised during the trial unless both parties are willing to go on the record, e.g., in a stipulation, that they agree. So don't look for resolution of any of the important underlying issues, e.g., copyright infringement, the applicability of Sec. 271(f) of the Patent Act, etc., coming out of this session.
I can tell you from personal experience in mediation the last person you want in the room is the CEO. That is a recipe for disaster. For a mediation to have a chance, the representatives need to be able to check their egos at the door, listen to the other side and the mediator, and provide the CEO of the company the flexibility to make a call on settlement without having to be personally present. Unfortunately, with this move Judge Alsup and the magistrate have almost assured another failed mediation.
The mediation/settlement conference is scheduled to occur on Monday, September 19, 2011.
So expect this case to go to trial if for no other reason than the fact that the expectation of what would constitute a reasonable settlement by the two parties is likely so far apart as to not be resolvable short of trial. There are simply too many open issues (copyright and Sec. 271(f) alone) at this time that, should they be decided before trial, would make it far more likely the parties could reach a settlement agreement.
Speaking of going to trial, Judge Alsup had indicated he would hold over the jury pool from a criminal trial in October to serve as the jury pool for this case if the criminal trial does not go forward as scheduled.
376 [PDF] Google objected (on the grounds that the jury pool would have been sufficiently narrowed for reasons pertinent to a criminal trial that the pool would no longer be sufficiently representative for a civil trial. Judge Alsup, while acknowledging that Google may prove correct in the end, overruled 400 [PDF] Google's objection on the ground that Google cannot presently demonstrate any lack of a fair cross section of the community in that prospective jury pool. Whether that gives Google the right to reassert its objection later is not clear.
**************
Docket
393 – Filed and Effective: 09/06/2011
PROPOSED ORDER
Document Text: Proposed Order RE RULE 706 EXPERTS by Google Inc.. (Purcell, Daniel) (Filed on 9/6/2011) (Entered: 09/06/2011)
394 – Filed and Effective: 09/06/2011
ORDER
Document Text: ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT ORDER FOR RULE 706 EXPERT re 393 Proposed Order filed by Google Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on September 6, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2011) (Entered: 09/06/2011)
396 – Filed and Effective: 09/06/2011
RESPONSE
Document Text: RESPONSE (re 260 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count VIII of Plaintiff Oracle America's Amended Complaint) UNREDACTED VERSION filed byOracle America, Inc.. (Kuwayti, Kenneth) (Filed on 9/6/2011) (Entered: 09/06/2011)
397 – Filed and Effective: 09/06/2011
DECLARATION EXHIBITS
Document Text: EXHIBITS re 341 Declaration in Support, Unredacted Versions of Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of John C. Mitchell in Support of Oracle's Opposition to Google's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count VIII of Oracle's Second Amended Complaint filed byOracle America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2)(Related document(s) 341) (Kuwayti, Kenneth) (Filed on 9/6/2011) (Entered: 09/06/2011)
398 – Filed and Effective: 09/06/2011
DECLARATION EXHIBITS
Document Text: EXHIBITS re 343 Declaration in Opposition,, Unredacted Versions of Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 to the Declaration of Roman A. Swoopes in Support of Oracle's Opposition to Google's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count VIII of Oracle's Second Amended Complaint filed byOracle America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 8, # 7 Exhibit 9, # 8 Exhibit 11, # 9 Exhibit 12, # 10 Exhibit 13)(Related document(s) 343) (Kuwayti, Kenneth) (Filed on 9/6/2011) (Entered: 09/06/2011)
399 – Filed and Effective: 09/06/2011
NOTICE
Document Text: NOTICE of Appearance by Rudolph Kim for Oracle (Kim, Rudolph) (Filed on 9/6/2011) (Entered: 09/06/2011)
400 – Filed and Effective: 09/07/2011
ORDER
Document Text: ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO JURY SELECTION PROCEDURE re 392 Objection filed by Google Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on September 7, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2011) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
401 – Filed and Effective: 09/07/2011
RESPONSE
Document Text: RESPONSE to re 386 Order ORACLES COMMENT ON ORDER REGARDING MEDIATION [Dkt. 386] by Oracle America, Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 9/7/2011) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
402 – Filed and Effective: 09/07/2011
RESPONSE
Document Text: RESPONSE to re 386 Order Re Mediation by Google Inc.. (Sabnis, Cheryl) (Filed on 9/7/2011) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
403 – Filed and Effective: 09/07/2011
NOTICE
Document Text: NOTICE of Appearance by John L. Cooper Regarding Counsel for Rule 706 Expert (Cooper, John) (Filed on 9/7/2011) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
404 – Filed and Effective: 09/07/2011
RESPONSE
Document Text: RESPONSE to re 386 Order Oracle's Supplemental Comment on Order regarding Mediation by Oracle America, Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 9/7/2011) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
405 – Filed and Effective: 09/08/2011
ORDER
Document Text: ORDER OF REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR MEDIATION. Signed by Judge Alsup on September 8, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2011) (Entered: 09/08/2011)
407 – Filed and Effective: 09/08/2011
PROPOSED ORDER
Document Text: Proposed Order re 394 Order [PROPOSED] ORDER RE RULE 706 EXPERTS by Oracle America, Inc.. (Holtzman, Steven) (Filed on 9/8/2011) (Entered: 09/08/2011)
408 – Filed and Effective: 09/08/2011
MOTION (STRICKEN)
Document Text: *** STRICKEN PER DKT. NO. 412 *** MOTION for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge re 361 Order filed by Google Inc.. Responses due by 9/22/2011. Replies due by 9/29/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Proposed Order)(Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 9/8/2011) Modified on 9/9/2011 (whalc1, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/2011)
409 – Filed and Effective: 09/08/2011
MOTION
Document Text: MOTION for Summary Judgment Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication Re: Google's Non-Liability Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) filed by Google Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2011 08:00 AM before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 9/22/2011. Replies due by 9/29/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Patrick Brady, # 2 Proposed Order)(Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 9/8/2011) (Entered: 09/08/2011)
410 – Filed and Effective: 09/08/2011
MOTION
Document Text: MOTION to Strike Portions of the Mitchell Patent Report filed by Google Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 9/29/2011 08:00AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 9/15/2011. Replies due by 9/22/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Sabnis, Cheryl) (Filed on 9/8/2011) (Entered: 09/08/2011)
411 – Filed and Effective: 09/08/2011
PROPOSED ORDER
Document Text: Proposed Order Granting Defendant Google Inc.'s 410 Motion to Strike Portions of the Mitchell Patent Report by Google Inc. (Sabnis, Cheryl) (Filed on 9/8/2011) Modified on 9/9/2011 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/08/2011)
412 – Filed and Effective: 09/09/2011
ORDER
Document Text: ORDER STRIKING UNAUTHORIZED RULE 72 MOTION by Judge Alsup striking 408 Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2011) (Entered: 09/09/2011)
413 – Filed and Effective: 09/09/2011
ORDER
Document Text: ORDER SETTING ASSIGNMENT FOR RULE 706 EXPERT re 407 Proposed Order filed by Oracle America, Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on September 9, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2011) (Entered: 09/09/2011)
414 – Filed and Effective: 09/09/2011
MINUTE ENTRY
Document Text: Minute Entry: Telephonic Pre-Settlement conference held. Court to issue scheduling order. (Date Filed: 9/9/2011). (Court Reporter FTR: (10:01 to 10:21.) (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/9/2011) (Entered: 09/09/2011)
416 - Filed and Effective: 09/09/2011 ORDER
Docket Text: ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Pre-Conference Tutorial Hearing as to Oracle set for 9/14/2011 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose. Pre-Conference Tutorial Hearing as to Google set for 9/14/2011 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose. Settlement Conference set for 9/19/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on 9/9/2011. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2011) (Entered: 09/09/2011)
**************
Documents
400
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
No. C 10-03561 WHA
ORDER OVERRULING
OBJECTIONS TO JURY
SELECTION PROCEDURE
On August 30, the parties were informed that the Court is pre-clearing a large number of
venire persons for a multi-month criminal trial, and that these same venire persons would be used
for this civil case in the event the criminal trial had to be postponed. Objections to using the
pre-cleared pool for this civil case were due on September 6. Oracle America, Inc. filed no
objections, but Google Inc. did.
Google notes that many potential jurors “who ordinarily would be available to serve on a
three-week civil trial” may have “significant personal or professional commitments” that would
prevent them from serving in a multi-month criminal trial. Accordingly, Google predicts that the
pre-cleared pool will be “less diverse” and “less representative” than the group that otherwise
would be used. “To maximize the size and diversity of the venire, enhance the qualify [sic] of the
jury-selection process, and increase the likelihood that the jury eventually selected will provide
the parties with a fair cross section of the community, Google respectfully requests that the Court
not use the pre-clearance process” (Dkt. No. 392).
Google’s predictions about the composition of the pre-cleared pool may prove accurate,
but Google has not identified any cognizable right that would be violated by using such a pool.
Google cites the statutory declaration of jury policy: “It is the policy of the United States that all
litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries
selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein
the court convenes.” 28 U.S.C. 1861. This policy does not require maximizing the diversity of a
jury pool as Google requests; it only requires that the pool constitute “a fair cross section of the
community.” Google has not shown that the pre-cleared pool would not be a fair cross section of
the community.
“In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the
defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the
community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is
not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that
this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.”
Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979). Google has not identified a “distinctive” group that
would be excluded from the pre-cleared pool. Groups that have been recognized as distinctive for
purposes of this analysis typically are defined by race, ethnicity, gender, or some other discrete
characteristic. Google cites no authority showing that individuals with “significant personal or
professional commitments” have been or should be recognized as a distinctive community group.
Google’s objections to using the pre-cleared pool are OVERRULED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 7, 2011.
/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
401
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)
[email]
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)
[email]
DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)
[email]
[address, phone, fax]
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[email]
[address, phone fax]
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)
[email]
[address, phone fax]
ORACLE CORPORATION
DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)
[email]
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)
[email]
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)
[email]
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
____________________
ORACLE AMERICA, INC. Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.
Defendant.
________________
Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA
ORACLE’S COMMENT ON ORDER
REGARDING MEDIATION [Dkt. 386]
Oracle concurs with the Court’s view that an additional attempt at
settlement of the case through mediation before a United State
Magistrate Judge is warranted. Oracle has found previous efforts at
settlement, including private discussions between the parties,
frustrating for lack of follow-through, and believes that those efforts
have not exhausted the possibilities for resolving the case.
As suggested by the Court, Oracle considers it essential that both
parties bring top-level executives. Accordingly, Oracle’s executive
representatives in the mediation before the Magistrate Judge will be
Safra Catz, President of Oracle Corporation, and Thomas Kurian,
Executive Vice President of Oracle Product Development.
Oracle will strive to make its representatives available as necessary
and proposes that the mediation occur before the end of September.
Dated: September 7, 2011
MICHAEL A. JACOBS
MARC DAVID PETERS
DANIEL P. MUINO
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs Michael A. Jacobs
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
402
ROBERT A. VAN NEST - #84065
[email]
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON - #184325
[email]
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
[address, phone, fax]
DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. - #112279
[email]
CHERYL A. SABNIS - #224323
[email]
KING & SPALDING LLP
[address, phone, fax]
SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER (Pro Hac Vice)
[email]
ROBERT F. PERRY
[email]
BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice)
KING & SPALDING LLP
[address, phone, fax]
IAN C. BALLON - #141819
[email]
HEATHER MEEKER - #172148
[email]
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
_________________
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
___________________
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA
Honorable William Alsup
GOOGLE INC’S RESPONSE TO
ORDER
REGARDING
MEDIATION
Google welcomes the Court’s suggestion that the parties participate in a
mediation of this case before a Magistrate Judge. Google does not object
to participating in a mediation before a Magistrate Judge who is not
otherwise involved in this case.
Google recognizes the importance of having top executives of the parties
attend the Court-ordered mediation. Google proposes that Andrew Rubin,
who is Senior Vice President, Mobile and reports directly to the Chief
Executive Officer, attend for Google together with Kent Walker, Vice
President and General Counsel of Google. Mr. Rubin’s executive
responsibilities include all of Google’s mobile business, of which the
Android business is a part. Mr. Rubin is knowledgeable regarding the
issues in this case and he is fully empowered to resolve this matter on
reasonable terms.
Google also understands from counsel for Oracle that they propose that
Safra Catz and Thomas Kurian attend on behalf of Oracle -- and Google
agrees with this choice. Ms. Catz is one of two Presidents of Oracle
who, like Mr. Rubin, reports directly to Oracle's Chief Executive
Officer. Mr. Rubin and Ms. Catz were involved in previous discussions
involving the subject matter at issue in this case.
1
DATED: September 7, 2011
KING & SPALDING LLP
By: /s/ Scott T. Weingaertner
SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER (Pro Hac Vice)
[email]
ROBERT F. PERRY
[email]
BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice)
[email]
[address, phone, fax]
ROBERT A. VAN NEST (SBN 84065)
[email]
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON (SBN 184325)
[email]
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
[address, phone, fax]
DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. (SBN 112279)
[email]
CHERYL A. SABNIS (SBN 224323)
[email]
KING & SPALDING LLP
[address, phone, fax]
IAN C. BALLON (SBN 141819)
[email]
HEATHER MEEKER (SBN 172148)
[email]
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
[address, phone, fax]
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.
2
404
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.
Defendant.
Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA
ORACLE’S SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMENT ON ORDER
REGARDING MEDIATION
Oracle submits these supplemental comments in response to Google’s proposal that
Andrew Rubin and Kent Walker represent Google in court-ordered mediation (Dkt. No. 402).
The Court’s mediation plan is the last chance to resolve this case before a major
investment of time and resources by the parties and the Court. The Court’s September 2, 2011
Order appropriately directs the parties to identify “top corporate executives” to participate in the
mediation. Oracle believes the prospects for a successful mediation will be far greater if
Google’s executive-level representative is a superior to Mr. Rubin, who is the architect of
Google’s Android strategy—the strategy that gives rise to this case.
The suggestion in Google’s filing today that Mr. Rubin and Ms. Catz are comparable
high-level executives merely because they both report to their respective CEOs ignores important
differences in their roles. Mr. Rubin is a Senior Vice-President with responsibility only for
Google’s mobile strategy. Indeed, Google itself does not identify Mr. Rubin as a top corporate
executive in its own public disclosures to investors. See, e.g.,
http://investor.google.com/company/management.html. In contrast, Ms. Catz is Oracle’s
President, CFO, and a member of its Board of Directors. She has company-wide responsibility for
all financial and legal matters. See http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/press/executives/index-
070733.html (describing Ms. Catz’s role on Oracle senior executive team).
Additionally, Mr. Rubin represented Google in several past discussions between the
parties. So has Mr. Walker, including at the unsuccessful private mediation referenced in the
Court’s Order. In light of the failure of these past attempts at resolution, Oracle believes it vital
that both parties assign top corporate executives to the mediation. Oracle asks that the Court
direct Google to assign a corporate representative to the mediation effort who meets this standard.
Dated: September 7, 2011
MICHAEL A. JACOBS
MARC DAVID PETERS
DANIEL P. MUINO
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
405
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
No. C 10-03561 WHA
ORDER OF REFERENCE
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
FOR MEDIATION
This matter is hereby REFERRED to MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL SINGH
GREWAL for
mediation. In light of the October trial date, mediation sessions should
take place this month.
The Court strongly recommends that Judge Grewal order Larry Ellison of
Oracle and Larry Page
of Google as well as the officers identified by the parties at docket
numbers 401 and 402 to attend
all mediation sessions, but leaves this determination to his judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 8, 2011.
(signature)
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
416
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No.: C 10-03561 WHA
ORDER RE SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
Yesterday, the presiding judge referred this case to the
undersigned for a settlement conference to occur no later than the
end of this month.1 This morning, the parties appeared for
a telephonic hearing. Having considered the arguments of counsel,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall appear for separate
pre-conference tutorials on September 14, 2011.2 By their outside counsel, Oracle
shall appear at 9:30AM and Google shall appear at 1:30PM. No party
representatives need appear at the tutorial, although they are more
than welcome to attend.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than September 12, 2011, the
parties shall lodge their respective confidential settlement
conference statements with the Clerk's Office. The parties shall
refer to the undersigned's settlement conference procedures
available on the court's website.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the settlement conference shall be
held on September 19, 2011 at 9AM. The party representatives
required to attend this and any further conferences include, but
are not limited to, Larry Ellison of Oracle and Larry Page of
Google.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties and their counsel should
be prepared for further conferences between September 20 and
September 30, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 9, 2011
(signature)
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
1 |
See Docket No. 405. |
2 |
Under ADR L.R. 7-5, "any written settlement conference
statements, anything that happened or was said, any position taken,
and any view of the merits of the case expressed by any participant
in connection with any settlement conference" is treated as
confidential. As a result, the tutorials and settlement conference
sessions will be closed sessions and not open to the public or the
media. |
|