Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03385/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03385-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORACLE AMERICA, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TERIX COMPUTER COMPANY, INC.,, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03385-JST (MEJ)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT DEBTOR EXAM

Re: Dkt. No. 699

Judgment creditors Oracle America, Inc. and Oracle International Corporation (collectively 

“Oracle”) move the Court to set a judgment-debtor exam for 10:00 a.m. on June 10, 2016. 

Judgment debtor TERiX Computer Company, Inc. (“Terix”) filed an opposition brief and Oracle 

filed a reply. The Court already granted this relief once, when Judge Lloyd ordered the judgmentdebtor exam to take place. Dkts. 685, 686. However, Oracle brought this application for a second 

time because the prior order for the judgment-debtor exam was vacated following Judge Lloyd’s 

recusal. Dkt. 691. As the merits of Terix’s arguments were already addressed by Judge Lloyd, the 

Court GRANTS Oracle’s request and shall issue a separate order setting the exam schedule.

1

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1

In its current opposition, Terix argues Oracle is improperly seeking to take discovery in Oracle

America, Inc. v. Appleby, Case No. 16-cv-02090, before the Rule 26(f) conference in that action. 

However, Oracle is permitted to take a judgment-debtor exam in this action under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 69 for the permissible purpose of insuring its recovery under the Stipulated

Judgment. Indeed, Oracle first filed its application to take a judgment-debtor exam in March

2016, Dkt. 678, and that application was originally granted, Dkt. 685, before the Appleby action

was filed. As noted above, that examination did not take place because of Judge Lloyd’s

recusal and the subsequent vacatur of the deposition. Regardless, the fact that Oracle has now

brought a fraudulent transfer action does not reach back into this case and deprive Oracle of the

discovery it is permitted to take under Rule 69.

Case 3:13-cv-03385-JST Document 704 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 1