Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01393/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01393-16/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) 

Alexander E. Reicher (SBN 286667) 

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 

DEFENDANT HEWLETT PACKARD 

ENTERPRISE COMPANY AND 

PLAINTIFFS ORACLE AMERICA 

INC. AND ORACLE INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION TO TAKE LIMITED 

DISCOVERY AFTER THE FACT 

DISCOVERY DEADLINE 

Case 3:16-cv-01393-JST Document 444 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 6
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 in response to the Court’s November 27, 2017 order entered by Magistrate 

Judge Laporte concerning various letter briefs submitted by the Parties pursuant to Local Rule 37-3 

(the “November 27 Order”), seeking this Court’s approval to exchange discovery after the fact 

discovery cutoff as ordered by Judge Laporte and as anticipated by the Local Rules.

WHEREAS, fact discovery in this matter closed on October 2, 2017 (ECF No. 312);

WHEREAS, Local Rule 37-3 permits the parties to submit motions to compel discovery “7 

days after the discovery cut-off”;

WHEREAS, on October 10, 2017, the Parties submitted a Joint Discovery Letter Brief 

wherein HPE challenged the sufficiency and scope of Oracle’s document collection and production 

for nine of Oracle’s document custodians (ECF No. 374);

WHEREAS, on October 10, 2017, the Parties submitted a Joint Discovery Letter Brief 

wherein Oracle argued that HPE had waived the attorney-client privilege with respect to certain 

issues (ECF No. 378);

WHEREAS, on October 11, 2017, the Parties submitted a Joint Discovery Letter Brief 

regarding discovery related to Oracle’s hardware displacement claims (ECF No. 382);

WHEREAS, on October 11, 2017, the Parties submitted a Joint Discovery Letter Brief 

wherein Oracle argued that HPE had improperly withheld discovery on certain issues (ECF No. 384);

WHEREAS, on November 27, 2017, Magistrate Judge Laporte issued an Order on the

Parties’ aforementioned Joint Discovery Letter Briefs (ECF No. 442);

WHEREAS, with respect to ECF No. 374, the November 27 Order requires Oracle to do the 

following: “On or before Monday, December 11, 2017, Oracle shall search and review updated 

document collections for custodians Jim Stonaker and Jeremy Sparks from the date of their last 

collection to the date of the updated collection (performed on or after the filing of this litigation) and 

produce all responsive, non-privileged documents,” and “[o]n or before Monday, December 18, 2017, 

Oracle shall produce a privilege log to HPE that sets forth any responsive documents from 

Case 3:16-cv-01393-JST Document 444 Filed 12/01/17 Page 2 of 6
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

Mr. Stonaker’s and Mr. Sparks’s updated document collections that were withheld, either in full or in 

part, on the basis of privilege” (id.);

WHEREAS, with respect to ECF No. 378, the November 27 Order requires HPE to “either 

(1) produce and waive the privilege over documents listed on its privilege log in ‘the relevant time 

period’ reflecting ‘general legal advice’ regarding Terix and what HPE employees should do with 

respect to opportunities involving Terix . . ., or (2) withdraw or adequately redact all documents 

reflecting advice by HPE attorneys or HPE’s legal department and stipulate that HPE will not make 

an advice of counsel defense or advance a good faith defense or other argument at summary 

judgment or trial that relies on ‘subjective belief[s] . . . informed by attorney advice’ from HPE’s

legal department or attorneys” (id.);

WHEREAS, with respect to ECF No. 378, the November 27 Order further requires HPE, if it 

elects option (2) above, to, on or before December 11, 2017, “identify for Oracle (by Bates number) 

all documents it seeks to redact or withdraw from production on the basis of attorney-client privilege 

and/or work product protection in ‘the relevant time period’ reflecting ‘general legal advice’ 

regarding Terix and what HPE employees should do with respect to opportunities involving Terix”;

“produce revised, redacted versions of all such documents, except for those documents that HPE 

seeks to withdraw in their entirety, and provide a written stipulation that HPE will not make an 

advice of counsel defense or advance a good faith defense or other argument at summary judgment or 

trial that relies on subjective beliefs that were informed by attorney advice from HPE’s legal 

department or attorneys”; and “make a proposal to Oracle with respect to how it proposes to handle 

deposition transcripts which attach or quote from documents [HPE] is withdrawing from production” 

(id.); 

WHEREAS, with respect to ECF No. 378, the November 27 Order requires Oracle to, on or 

before December 18, 2017, “inform HPE of additional redactions—if any—it requests that HPE 

make to [the documents identified by HPE] or other documents HPE has produced and whether 

HPE’s proposal with respect to deposition transcripts which attach or quote from documents it is 

withdrawing from production is acceptable,” and requires HPE to, on or before December 21, 2017, 

Case 3:16-cv-01393-JST Document 444 Filed 12/01/17 Page 3 of 6
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

“inform Oracle whether it agrees or disagrees with each of the additional redactions—if any—that 

Oracle proposes, and promptly produce the remaining documents with any of the additional 

redactions on which the parties agree” (id.);

WHEREAS, with respect to ECF No. 378, the November 27 Order further requires the Parties 

to file a joint letter with the Court not to exceed five (5) pages on or before December 29, 2017, 

should the Parties continue to disagree on issues concerning Section B of the November 27 Order 

(id.);

WHEREAS, with respect to ECF No. 382, the November 27 Order requires Oracle to search 

for and produce documents regarding ‘“decline’ in Oracle’s ‘[server] hardware business’ during the 

relevant period, including documents concerning the cause(s) of those decline,” from the three (3) 

existing Oracle custodians identified by HPE on November 27, 2017 (id.);

WHEREAS, with respect to ECF No. 382, the November 27 Order requires the Parties to 

produce specified responsive, non-custodial data on or before Friday, December 1, 2017 (id.);

WHEREAS, with respect to ECF No. 382, the November 27 Order further requires the Parties 

to meet and confer after the aforementioned non-custodial data is produced, at which point each party 

may identify no more than three (3) customers for which it proposes to pursue custodial productions, 

and within seven (7) days of that identification, each party shall identify the name and title of one 

document custodian for each of the identified customers, and the Parties shall then produce specified 

responsive, non-privileged documents from those custodians on a schedule agreed upon by the 

Parties but not exceeding forty-five (45) days from the date the custodians are identified (id.);

WHEREAS, with respect to ECF No. 384, the November 27 Order requires HPE to 

“designate, prepare and present a witness to testify on Topic 27 of Oracle’s Rule 30(b)(6) Notice to 

HPE” on a date that is “convenient for the witness and the Parties” for a deposition that “shall not 

exceed two hours of record time, not including any ‘objections or problems’ (beyond ordinary 

objections) that take place on the record” (id.);

WHEREAS, with respect to ECF No. 384, the November 27 Order requires HPE to, on or 

before Wednesday, November 29, 2017, “amend its response to Oracle’s Interrogatory No. 24 to 

Case 3:16-cv-01393-JST Document 444 Filed 12/01/17 Page 4 of 6
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

describe any ‘official guidance’ provided by its legal department to any of its employees regarding 

Terix, to the extent HPE decides not to withdraw or adequately redact all of the documents it has 

produced reflecting that information and provide the stipulation” referenced in Section B of the 

November 27 Order (id.);

WHEREAS, the aforementioned discovery ordered in the November 27 Order will take place 

after the discovery cutoff of October 2, 2017, and Judge Laporte instructed the Parties to “file a joint 

stipulation and request for an extension of the Scheduling Order with Judge Tigar to accommodate 

the discovery and deadlines reflected in [the November 27] Order” (id.);

WHEREAS, in light of Judge Laporte’s November 27 Order, good cause exists to permit this 

limited discovery after the fact discovery cutoff;

WHEREAS, for the avoidance of doubt, the Parties are not proposing an extension of the fact

discovery period; rather, the Parties are merely seeking this Court’s approval to exchange discovery 

after the fact discovery cutoff as ordered by Judge Laporte, and as anticipated by the Local Rules;

WHEREAS, nothing in this stipulation shall be interpreted as any waiver of the Parties’ rights 

to relief from Judge Laporte’s November 27 Order;

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate and request that the Court permit the Parties 

to exchange the discovery ordered by Judge Laporte in the November 27 Order by the dates set forth 

in that Order.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: November 30, 2017 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

By: /s/ Samuel G. Liversidge

Samuel G. Liversidge

Attorneys for Defendant

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

Dated: November 30, 2017 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

By: _ /s/ Christopher S. Yates_____________

Christopher S. Yates

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:16-cv-01393-JST Document 444 Filed 12/01/17 Page 5 of 6
5

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

Oracle America, Inc. and Oracle International 

Corporation

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: By:______________________________

 THE HONORABLE JON S. TIGAR

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

December 1, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01393-JST Document 444 Filed 12/01/17 Page 6 of 6