Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836-26/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NSIGHT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

PEOPLESOFT, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. 3:04 CV 3836 MMC (MEJ)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY IN STATE

COURT ACTION

On May 11, 2006, the Court issued an order reiterating its prior order of April 13, 2006 (Doc.

#116) that plaintiff nSight, Inc. was not entitled to discovery from third party Forrester Research,

Inc. after the discovery cut-off. Doc. #124. Now before the Court is a letter from defendant Oracle

USA, Inc.'s counsel regarding discovery in a state court action - nSight, Inc. v. PeopleSoft, Inc.,

Alameda Superior Court No. 2002051531. Doc. #129. Apparently, nSight served Forrester with a

subpoena in the state court action that seeks substantially the same discovery as nSight sought in this

Court. Oracle requests that the Court require nSight to withdraw the subpoena. However, it is not

the jurisdiction of this Court to determine relevant discovery in a state court matter. Accordingly,

the Court hereby DENIES Oracle's request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2006 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Maria-Elena James

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 132 Filed 05/18/06 Page 1 of 1