Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01658/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01658-62/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORACLE USA, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 07-1658 PJH

v. ORDER

SAP AG, et al.,

Defendants

_______________________________/

On January 4, 2010, the court received a letter from a Michael Pulk, of Bryan,

Texas. On the same date, the court had the letter docketed as a “Received” document. 

See Docket No. 587. The letter had been sent express mail on December 29, 2009, but

because of the New Year’s holiday and the court’s unavailability during that period, the

letter did not reach the court until January 4, 2010.

The letter is not entirely clear, but it appears that Mr. Pulk is unhappy about some

aspect of the conduct of discovery in this action, or more particularly, believes that some

discovery practice of the parties is having a negative effect on his business.

The court hereby directs the parties to meet and confer regarding this issue, and to

file a status report within 30 days advising the court as to how they have resolved this

problem.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document 588 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 1