Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836-39/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 DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

The Court is in receipt of the parties' Joint Meet and Confer Letter re Order of May 11, 2006. 

(Doc. #177.) In the letter, plaintiff nSight, Inc. seeks sanctions for defendant Oracle USA, Inc.'s

alleged failure to comply with the Court's May 11, 2006 Order. In that order, issued in response to

the parties' May 9, 2006 joint letter regarding Oracle's discovery responses (Doc. #123), the Court

ordered Oracle to serve on nSight a declaration: (1) attesting that it had produced all non-privileged

documents within its possession, custody, or control; and (2) confirming that it conducted a diligent

search of all locations at which such materials might plausibly exist." (Doc. #127.) nSight now

seeks sanctions, arguing that Oracle failed to comply with the order and conducted limited searches.

Upon review of the parties' letter, the Court finds sanctions inappropriate. In their May 9

letter, the parties attached an exhibit detailing how their prior meet-and-confer session resulted in

clarifications to the nature and scope of nSight's document requests. nSight did not object to

narrowed scope, other than to argue that it never acknowledged Oracle as the successor to

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 180 Filed 08/15/06 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

PeopleSoft. Accordingly, the Court's May 11 Order required Oracle to serve a declaration as

contemplated by the parties' discovery conference, not nSight's original requests. As Oracle

complied with this requirement, the Court hereby DENIES nSight's request for sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2006 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 180 Filed 08/15/06 Page 2 of 2