decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
Oracle's Subpoena to Apache, Claim Construction Order, and an Annoyed Judge
Tuesday, May 10 2011 @ 01:02 AM EDT

I thought you'd like to see the Apache subpoena [PDF] that Oracle just sent them. Specifically, it's a Boies Schiller production, as you can see at the bottom of page one.

And there are more filings, a notice of a case management conference at 7 in the morning on May 11, believe it or not, the claim construction order, with a long description of Java, also a letter from Oracle complaining about Google, followed by an order from the judge, who has clearly had it with the parties' inability to get things settled without his intervention on every little dispute. He's sending all discovery disputes to a randomly selected magistrate.

Here are all the filings:

05/09/2011 - 136 - NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Alsup on May 9, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2011) (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011 - 137 - CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER. Signed by Judge Alsup on May 9, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2011) (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011 - 138 - Letter from Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. Regarding Discovery Master. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 5/9/2011) (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011 - 139 - ORDER REFERRING ALL DISCOVERY DISPUTES FOR ASSIGNMENT TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 138 Letter filed by Oracle America, Inc., ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge for Discovery purposes. Signed by Judge Alsup on May 9, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2011) (Entered: 05/09/2011)

The Notice, #136, shows the judge setting a date for the case management conference, but once again, he sounds like he's had it up to here with all these high-falutin' corporate lawyers:
The recent submissions reveal unrealistic expectations about the judicial resources and time that can be devoted to this case. The Court invites one attorney and one corporate representative per side to meet in chambers on MAY 11 at 7:00 A.M. to discuss alternatives and case management. This hour is necessary because the Courtís trial calendar begins at 7:30 a.m. If either side timely so requests, a court reporter will be present; otherwise, it will be unreported. Each side shall bring to the conference a copy of its own human resources (or other) policy on the number of days of salary/wage-continuation for its employees on jury duty, both as of the commencement of this action and at present.
So, May 11 at *7* AM. I would suggest they be on time.

#137 is his claim construction order. And next is an Oracle letter to the judge, complaining about Google's refusal to accept a special master to look at confidential materials. But the judge sends all discovery matters to a magistrate judge. That way he doesn't have to get any more letters about discovery. Some unfortunate magistrate will get them all. He ends the order with this pithy message to Oracle: "The Court does not have the authority to force an unwilling party to accept a special master for discovery supervision."

I love this judge.


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )