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 v. Google - Judge Orders Oracle to Cough Up Engineers
Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 03:15 PM EST

That didn't take long. Less than 24 hours after receiving the joint letter from the parties with regard to witnesses relied upon by Dr. Cockburn in preparing the third version of his damages report (711 [PDF; Text]), Judge Alsup has ordered (712 [PDF; Text]) Oracle to produce all five of the engineers referenced in the report for deposition by Google. We had anticipated that he would allow Google to depose Dr. Reinhold and perhaps two of the other four engineers, but Judge Alsup told Oracle to serve them all up. And not for a mere two hours apiece but for a total of 14 hours over two days, the time to be allocated by Google as it desires.

Given the speed and extent of this order, two things are clear. First, Judge Alsup has no intent of letting this trial schedule slip further. As additional evidence of this he issued a second supplemental order (713 [PDF; Text]) telling Google that these depositions must fit in with the schedule already established. In other words, Google must complete these depositions in the next few days.

Second, Judge Alsup is sticking with his word with respect to this third version of Cockburn's damages report. That is, he is going to give Google wide latitude to challenge it and the facts upon which Cockburn relies.


*************

Docket

712 - Filed and Effective: 02/09/2012
ORDER
Document Text: ORDER REGARDING FEBRUARY 8 JOINT LETTER re 711 Letter filed by Google Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on February 9, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF)

713 - Filed and Effective: 02/09/2012
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
Document Text: SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS re 712 Order. Signed by Judge Alsup on February 9, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF)


*************

712

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
FEBRUARY 8 JOINT LETTER

________________________________________

The parties have a discovery dispute arising from Dr. Ian Cockburn’s third damages report. In his report, Dr. Cockburn stated that he “consulted with Dr. Mark Reinhold . . . and with other Java engineers employed by Sun and now Oracle” in order to rank the importance of the intellectual property in the 2006 license bundle. Dr. Cockburn named four individuals as the “other Java engineers” in his report.

Google seeks to depose these “other Java engineers.” Oracle opposes and argues that only Dr. Reinhold should be deposed. Oracle explains that only Dr. Reinhold provided information to Dr. Cockburn and the “consulted with . . . other Java engineers” phrase was unfortunately the result of a “drafting error.” Oracle explains that these other engineers only assisted Dr. Reinhold, did not directly speak with Dr. Cockburn, and are not expected to testify at trial.

Google is hereby allowed to depose (and Oracle must make available without subpoena) Dr. Reinhold and the four “other Java engineers” for a total of 14 hours of “airtime,” i.e., not counting breaks, all depositions to occur over the course of two days unless counsel agree otherwise. Oracle must produce at the depositions any materials used by the deponent in supplying information to the expert or to Dr. Reinhold on the subjects at issue. Google may allocate the 14 hours as it wishes among the five deponents, in any sequence Google wishes, and may choose to eliminate one or more deponents without prejudice to its full 14 hours of “air time.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2012.

/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2


713

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

No. C 10-03561 WHA

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
REGARDING ADDITIONAL
DEPOSITIONS

______________________________________

All of the depositions authorized today must fit within the existing schedule.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2012.

/s/ Williams Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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 )