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 - Administrative Matters
Saturday, March 31 2012 @ 08:40 AM EDT

Not a lot of activity in the case yesterday. Only a couple of administrative filings. In the first (841 [PDF; Text]) the Court addresses what it expects to be somewhat crowded conditions in the public seating area of the courtroom at the beginning of the trial. In part this is due to the large size of the jury pool. So the Court has asked the respective parties to limit the size of their entourages.

In the second (842 [PDF; Text]) the parties have agreed on the manner in which Dr. Kearl, the court-appointed damages expert, will be introduced to the jury:

“Dr. Kearl is an independent expert who was not retained by either party, but was appointed by the Court to testify in this case. The Court has ordered that his fees are to be paid by both Oracle and Google. You should consider his testimony in the same way that you would any other witness’s.”
Not that everything in this case has to cut in favor of one party or the other, but you have to wonder whether this introduction doesn't benefit Google on two counts.

First, Dr. Kearl is introduced as an independent expert appointed by the court. If you are in the jury and you are introduced to three experts, one appointed by and paid for by each party and the third who is introduced as independent and appointed by the court, aren't you going to be inclined to give the opinion of the court-appointed independent expert more weight? I would think that is natural.

Second, from what we have seen, Dr. Kearl's opinion is going to be closer to the Google position than the Oracle position, and it is certainly not going to result in damages higher than what Oracle is requesting. So my sense is that this introduction will favor Google.


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

Docket

03/30/2012 - 841 - ORDER REGARDING SEATING FOR FIRST DAY OF TRIAL. Signed by Judge Alsup on March 30, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2012) (Entered: 03/30/2012)

03/30/2012 - 842 - Statement Joint Statement Regarding Introduction of Dr. James Kearl to the Jury by Google Inc.. (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 3/30/2012) (Entered: 03/30/2012)

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

Documents

841

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
SEATING FOR FIRST
DAY OF TRIAL

____________________________

On the first day of trial we will need to reserve the west side of the public seating for the venire. To make room for more members of the public, counsel are requested to minimize the size of their teams in the public seating on the east side. Once the jury is sworn, we should have enough room for all. Please remind all team members not to communicate with venire members.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2012.

/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


842

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 3:10-cv-03651 WHA

JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING
INTRODUCTION OF DR. JAMES KEARL
TO THE JURY

Dept.: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Judge: Hon. William Alsup


Pursuant to the Court’s request at the March 28, 2012 pretrial hearing, the parties have met and conferred regarding the introduction of Dr. Kearl to the jury. The parties, as well as Dr. Kearl, agree that Dr. Kearl should be introduced to the jury as follows:

“Dr. Kearl is an independent expert who was not retained by either party, but was appointed by the Court to testify in this case. The Court has ordered that his fees are to be paid by both Oracle and Google. You should consider his testimony in the same way that you would any other witness’s.”

1


Dated: March 30, 2012

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP

By: /s/ Robert A. Van Nest

ROBERT A. VAN NEST (SBN 84065)
[email]
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON (SBN184325)
[email]
DANIEL PURCELL (SBN 191424)
[email address telephone fax]

SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER (Pro Hac Vice)
[email]
ROBERT F. PERRY
[email]
BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice)
[email address telephone fax]

DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. (SBN 112279)
[email]
CHERYL A. SABNIS (SBN 224323)
[email]
KING & SPALDING LLP
[address telephone fax]

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
IAN C. BALLON (SBN 141819)
[email]
HEATHER MEEKER (SBN 172148)
[email address telephone fax]

Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

2


Dated: March 30, 2012

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

By: /s/ Steven C. Holtzman

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[email address telephone fax]
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)
[email address telephone fax]

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)
[email]
KENNETH A. KUWAYTI (Bar No. 145384)
[email]
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)
[email]
DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)
[email address telephone fax]

ORACLE CORPORATION
DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)
[email]
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)
[email]
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)
[email address telephone fax]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

3


Dated: March 30, 2012

FARELLA, BRAUN & MARTEL LLP

By: /s/ John L. Cooper

FARELLA, BRAUN & MARTEL LLP JOHN L. COOPER [email address telephone]

Attorneys for Independent Expert
DR. JAMES KEARL

4


ATTESTATION

I, Robert A. Van Nest, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING INTRODUCTION OF DR. JAMES KEARL TO THE JURY. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Steven C. Holtzman and John L. Cooper concurred in this filing.

Date: March 30, 2012

/s/ Robert A. Van Nest

5


  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 )