Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01393/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01393-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CASE SCHEDULE 

Case No. 3:16-cv-01393-JST

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

 Christopher S. Yates (SBN 161273) 

 Christopher B. Campbell (SBN 254776) 

 Brittany N. Lovejoy (SBN 286813) 

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, California 94111-6538 

Telephone: 415.391.0600 

Facsimile: 415.395.8095 

Email: chris.yates@lw.com

 christopher.campbell@lw.com 

 brittany.lovejoy@lw.com

alexander.reicher@lw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Oracle America, Inc., and Oracle 

International Corporation 

JEFFREY T. THOMAS, SBN 106409

jtthomas@gibsondunn.com 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

3161 Michelson Drive 

Irvine, CA 92612-4412 

Telephone: 949.451.3800 

Facsimile: 949.451.4220 

SAMUEL LIVERSIDGE, SBN 180578 

sliversidge@gibsondunn.com 

BLAINE H. EVANSON, SBN 254338 

bevanson@gibsondunn.com 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

333 South Grand Avenue 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 

Telephone: 213.229.7000 

Facsimile: 213.229.7520 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ORACLE AMERICA, INC., a Delaware 

corporation; ORACLE INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION, a California corporation 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE 

COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 

1–50, 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-01393-JST

JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER BY PLAINTIFFS 

ORACLE AMERICA INC. AND 

ORACLE INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION AND DEFENDANT 

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE 

COMPANY REGARDING CASE 

SCHEDULE

Case 3:16-cv-01393-JST Document 573 Filed 05/23/18 Page 1 of 5
1

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CASE SCHEDULE 

Case No. 3:16-cv-01393-JST

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs Oracle America, Inc. and Oracle International Corporation (together “Oracle”) and 

Defendant Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“HPE”) (together, the “Parties”) submit the 

following joint stipulation and request that the Court make certain adjustments to the current case 

schedule, as detailed below:

WHEREAS, the Court entered a Scheduling Order on August 8, 2017 (Dkt. No. 312) (hereafter, 

“Scheduling Order”) setting a trial date for October 29, 2018; 

WHEREAS, due to certain conflicts, including conflicts in the calendar of HPE’s lead trial 

counsel, HPE requested that Oracle agree to a short continuance of the trial date to a date in early 2019 

(ideally late February or March); 

WHEREAS, Oracle agreed to a short continuance provided that it works with the Court’s 

schedule and does not result in a trial date later than March 2019; 

WHEREAS, the Parties contacted the Court and understand that the Court has availability in 

early 2019; 

WHEREAS, the Parties agree to a trial date of March 4, 2019, and a pre-trial conference date 

of February 8, 2019, subject to the Court’s availability; 

WHEREAS, the Parties also intend to file motions challenging the testimony of the other 

Party’s expert(s) before trial, and believe that setting a briefing schedule for such motions will assist 

with the orderly preparation of this case for trial; 

WHEREAS, the Parties agree to the following briefing schedule and hearing date for pretrial 

motions challenging under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 the opinions of expert witnesses served on or 

before the date of this Order: (1) motions shall be filed on or before June 27, 2018 with a noticed 

hearing date of August 16, 2018; (2) oppositions to the motions shall be filed on or before July 25, 

2018; and (3) replies in support of the motions shall be filed on or before August 9, 2018; 

WHEREAS, the Parties’ agreement herein is not intended to limit the Parties’ ability to raise 

any challenges to expert testimony during pretrial proceedings or during trial, to the extent such 

challenges would otherwise be permitted under applicable law;

WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred and agreed upon the following revised 

deadlines: 

Case 3:16-cv-01393-JST Document 573 Filed 05/23/18 Page 2 of 5
2

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CASE SCHEDULE 

Case No. 3:16-cv-01393-JST

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Event Current Deadline Revised Deadline

Deadline to file 

dispositive motions

February 28, 2018 February 28, 2018

Dispositive motion 

oppositions due

April 27, 2018 April 27, 2018

Dispositive motion 

replies due

May 25, 2018 May 25, 2018

Pretrial motions 

challenging expert 

testimony under FRE 702 

due 

None set. June 27, 2018

Oppositions to pretrial 

motions challenging 

expert testimony due

None set. July 25, 2018

Replies in support of 

pretrial motions 

challenging expert 

testimony due

None set. August 9, 2018

Hearing on pretrial 

motions challenging 

expert testimony

None set. August 16, 2018 at 2:00 

p.m. 

Pretrial conference 

statement due

July 23, 2018 January 29, 2019

Pretrial conference September 7, 2018 at 

2:00 p.m. 

February 8, 2019 at 2:00 

p.m. 

Trial October 29, 2018 at 8:30 

a.m.

March 4, 2019 at 8:30 

a.m.

NOW, THEREFORE, good cause shown, the parties hereby respectfully request that the 

Court: 

(1) Modify the Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 312), and adopt the revised deadlines shown 

above. 

Case 3:16-cv-01393-JST Document 573 Filed 05/23/18 Page 3 of 5
3

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CASE SCHEDULE 

Case No. 3:16-cv-01393-JST

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: May 23, 2018 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

By: /s/ Samuel G. Liversidge

Samuel G. Liversidge 

Attorneys for Defendant

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

Dated: May 23, 2018 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

 

 By: /s/ Christopher S. Yates_____________ 

 Christopher S. Yates 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Oracle America, Inc. and Oracle International 

 Corporation 

 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: By:_____________________________

 THE HONORABLE JON S. TIGAR

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

May 23, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-01393-JST Document 573 Filed 05/23/18 Page 4 of 5
4

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CASE SCHEDULE 

Case No. 3:16-cv-01393-JST

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

I, Samuel G. Liversidge, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to 

file the foregoing letter. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I attest that 

concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained. 

Dated: May 23, 2018 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

 

 By: /s/ Samuel G. Liversidge

 Samuel G. Liversidge 

 Attorneys for Defendant

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

 

Case 3:16-cv-01393-JST Document 573 Filed 05/23/18 Page 5 of 5