Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01658/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01658-76/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 CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 07-1658 PJH

v. ORDER

SAP AG, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

The court has briefly reviewed the discussions in the trial briefs and in the joint

pretrial statement, filed August 5, 2010, regarding the parties’ efforts to streamline the case

for trial. The court is presently in the process of preparing the order regarding the

submitted motions for summary judgment, which were heard on May 5, 2010, and, in light

of some of the representations in the pretrial papers, as well as SAP’s August 5, 2010

press release, requires some clarification regarding whether SAP’s concessions or

proposed concessions will obviate the need for the court to decide any of the issues raised

in the summary judgment motions. Accordingly, no later than Tuesday, August 10, 2010,

the parties shall submit a joint statement advising the court which – if any – of the matters

at issue in the summary judgment motions have been resolved by the parties and need not

be addressed by the court.

In addition, it appears from the pretrial submissions that the parties are having some

difficulty reaching agreement as to how best to streamline the case for trial. If the parties

are unable to accomplish this on their own, the court will require that they meet with a

Case 4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document 749 Filed 08/06/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Magistrate Judge. Depending on availability, the court will refer the matter to either Judge

Spero or Judge Laporte, or, if the parties prefer, to either Judge Ryu or Judge Beeler of the

Oakland court. The parties shall indicate their preference in the August 10, 2010 joint

statement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document 749 Filed 08/06/10 Page 2 of 2