04/24/2012 - 967 - Transcript of Proceedings held on 4/20/12, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Powell Sullivan and Debra L. Pas, OfficialReporters, Telephone number 415-794-6659/ Katherine_Sullivan@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Redaction Request due 5/15/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/25/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/23/2012. (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 4/24/2012) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
04/24/2012 - 968 - ORDER REGARDING FORMAT OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 24, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2012) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
04/24/2012 - 969 - Witness List by Google Inc. Google Inc.'s Rolling List of Next Ten Witnesses. (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 4/24/2012) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
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 REGARDING
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE
ALL ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW
THAT MUST BE RESOLVED BY
THE JUDGE, INCLUDING SCOPE
OF PROTECTION OF THE
COPYRIGHTS
By NOON ON THE SECOND BUSINESS DAY following the close of evidence in Phase One,
both sides shall file proposed findings of fact, each identified by number as to any issue of fact
that is for the judge to resolve. Each proposed finding should be concise and limited to one or
two or (at most) three lines of text (exclusive of any block quotes from trial exhibits) followed
by exact trial record cites fully supporting the proposed finding. The proposals should be at a
level of specificity/generality so as to fit within the page limit set forth below. As a rule of
thumb, less controverted subjects may be captured in more generalized proposed findings; more
controversial subjects, however, usually require greater specificity and more proposed findings.
Block quotes and record cites may be single-spaced (and indented) but otherwise the proposals
should be double-spaced. Example:
1. When defendant went through the
intersection of
Hayes and Gough, the light was red in his direction.
Jones at RT 97:1–3
Young at RT 15:11–12
The same submission should also set forth each proposed conclusion of law. Each
proposed conclusion of law must briefly identify the proposed findings of fact supporting the
conclusion and the legal authority therefor (quoting the key language of said authority). The
overall length of the submission must be 35 pages or less.
By NOON THREE CALENDAR DAYS LATER, the opposing side must file and serve a
response. The response must state, separately as to each proposed finding, whether the
responding party agrees with the proposed finding and if not in full agreement, then the full
extent to which, considering the duty of good faith and candor, the responding party admits the
proposed finding. To the extent that the responding side objects in any respect to the proposed
finding, it must state (i) the extent to which the opposition is based on a failure of the record
cites to support the proposal (explaining why they do not support it) and (ii) the extent to which
the objection is based on contrary evidence (citing the contrary evidence) or lack of credibility
(citing relevant evidence). Example:
1. Agree that the light was red but the light had just
changed a split second before.
Mack RT 42:17–18
The submission shall similarly state the extent to which the responding party agrees with
each conclusion of law proposed by the other side. If there is any disagreement, the responding
side must state (i) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the supporting
findings, (ii) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the cited authorities to
support the conclusion, and (iii) the extent to which contrary authorities contradict the legal
basis for the proposed conclusion.
The responding submission should reproduce each original finding or conclusion and
then, immediately after each, supply the responsive information. It may not exceed twice the
overall number of pages used by the submission to which it responds.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 24, 2012.
/s/William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
