Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836-47/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NSIGHT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PEOPLESOFT, INC.,

Defendant

 /

No. C 04-3836 MMC (MEJ)

ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 60(a) OF

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE

On November 27, 2006, the Court entered its Order Granting in Part and Denying in

Part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding therein that defendant was entitled

to summary judgment as to the First, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action, dismissing the

remaining claims without prejudice to plaintiff’s refiling such claims in state court, and

terminating any other motions pending at the time of the issuance of said order. The Court,

pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, now enters the following

order to correct an error arising from oversight or omission, specifically, to set forth the

Court’s rulings as to such other motions, which motions reflect, in essence, the parties’

respective objections to evidence offered in connection with the above-referenced motion

for summary judgment:

1. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Disqualify Erik Terreri as Expert Witness,” filed October 30,

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 256 Filed 11/30/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2006, and plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike Declaration of Erik Terreri,” filed November 13, 2006,

are hereby DENIED as moot, for the reason the Court has not relied on the testimony of

Erik Terreri in ruling on defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

2. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike Deposition Testimony of Shawn Stufft, Merv Tarde,

and Declarations of Jacqueline M. Ryan and Robbin Henslee and James A. Hughes,” filed

November 10, 2006, is hereby DENIED. First, the Court has not relied on the declarations

of Jacqueline M. Ryan and Robbin Henslee, nor on Exhibits G, H, I, and 46 to the

Declaration of James A. Hughes, in ruling on defendant’s motion for summary judgment,

and, consequently, plaintiff’s motion to strike such declarations is moot. Second, plaintiff

has failed to show that the testimony of Shawn Stufft and Merv Tarde is so uncredible as to

be inadmissible.

3. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Disqualify Mark Stepka as Expert Witness,” filed November

10, 2006, is hereby DENIED as moot; defendant has not offered the testimony of Mark

Stepka in support of its motion for summary judgment.

4. Defendant’s “Motion to Exclude Expert Report and Testimony of Dr. Anuradha

Maitra,” filed October 27, 2006, is hereby DENIED as moot; the opinions offered by Dr.

Maitra are, even if admissible, insufficient to create a triable issue of fact, because such

opinions are conclusory and not supported by any evidence submitted by plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 256 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 2