Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03385/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03385-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

1 

Case No. 5:13-cv-03385-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

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 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ORACLE AMERICA, INC. et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

TERIX COMPUTER COMPANY, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:13-cv-03385-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY 

DISPUTES

(Re: Docket Nos. 414, 418, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 524, 525, 527, 528, 536, 

574)

 

Before the court are 14 (!) letter briefs on various discovery disputes among the parties. In 

the interest of resolving these disputes in a timely fashion, the court foregoes a lengthy recitation of 

the facts and legal standards and instead simply rules as follows:

Docket No. Issue Ruling Reason/Explanation 

414 Oracle RFP Nos. 76-78 GRANTED Oracle is entitled to broader 

information than already provided to 

identify the extent of damages 

Maintech is claiming. That the 

information may not, in Maintech’s 

view, be reliable is not a justification 

to withhold responsive documents. 

414 Oracle’s 3rd Set of RFPs 

from January 1, 2008-

forward

GRANTED Oracle is entitled to documents from 

January 1, 2008 to investigate the 

alleged effects of the change in policy. 

The two months currently provided is 

insufficient. Maintech chose to bring

these counterclaims and cannot now 

refuse to produce documents relevant 

Case 3:13-cv-03385-JST Document 582 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 8
2 

Case No. 5:13-cv-03385-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

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

to those claims because it is 

burdensome. 

418 Any Terix claim that 

Oracle’s damages 

calculations are 

speculative

DENIED Terix produced the requested 

information. Given that the 

production was well in advance of trial 

and that much of the production was 

already in Oracle’s hands prior to the 

production, the court does not find that 

Terix’s delay prejudices Oracle.

517 Oracle Interrogatory 15 DENIED The request is moot in light of Terix’s 

representation that the underlying 

claim is no longer in the case. 

517 Oracle Interrogatories 22-

25, 36 

DENIED The requested information is properly 

the subject of expert inquiry, 

particularly information about 

potential customers.

517 Oracle Interrogatory 33 GRANTED A party cannot refuse to respond to an 

interrogatory merely because the other 

party may have learned the 

information by means of other 

discovery.1

517 Oracle RFAs 32, 34-35 GRANTED Oracle is entitled to clear admissions 

or denials. Terix’s responses provide 

neither. 

518 Oracle 30(b)(6) 

Deposition re Topics 8, 

11, 19, 20 

GRANTED Oracle is entitled to a 30(b)(6) 

deposition on the requested topics in 

light of Defendants’ antitrust 

counterclaims, which were not 

asserted at the time of the previous 

30(b)(6) deposition. 

518 Oracle Interrogatory 12 DENIED The request is moot in light of 

Maintech’s representation that the 

underlying claim is no longer in the 

case.

518 Oracle Interrogatories 15, 

17 

DENIED The parties did not sufficiently meet 

and confer to determine what further 

information—if any—is required in 

response to these interrogatories.

518 Oracle Interrogatory 25 GRANTED Interrogatory responses may not 

incorporate by reference information 

 

1 See Bretana v. Int’l Collection Corp., Case No. 07-cv-05934, 2008 WL 4334710, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Sept. 22, 2008) (citing Davidson v. Goord, 215 F.R.D. 73, 77 (W.D.N.Y. 2003)). 

Case 3:13-cv-03385-JST Document 582 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 8
3 

Case No. 5:13-cv-03385-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

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

contained in pleadings, depositions or 

other documents or interrogatories

unless the burden of deriving or 

ascertaining the answer will be 

substantially the same for either 

party.

2

518 Oracle Interrogatory 26 DENIED The parties did not sufficiently meet 

and confer to determine what further 

information—if any—is required in 

response to these interrogatories.

519 Terix RFP No. 99 GRANTEDIN-PARTOracle has represented that it has 

produced everything it has that is 

responsive to the request. 

Oracle shall amend its response to 

reflect this representation.

519 Terix RFP No. 121 GRANTED- IN-PARTOracle has represented that it has 

produced everything it has that is 

responsive to the request. 

Oracle shall amend its response to 

reflect this representation.

The court previously cabined the 

responsive period to 2008-forward.3

 Discovery from 2005-forward is 

unnecessary for Terix’s defenses 

because Oracle’s claims likewise 

cannot arise from pre-2008 discovery. 

519 Terix RFP No. 126 GRANTED- IN-PARTOracle has represented that it has 

produced everything it has that is 

responsive to the request. 

Oracle shall amend its response to 

reflect this representation.

519 Custodial and NonCustodial Sources DENIED Oracle has represented that it has 

searched custodial and non-custodial 

sources alike and produced everything 

it has that is responsive to the request. 

Oracle has already so represented in 

its RFP responses. Amendment is not 

required. 

 

2 See In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13-md-02420, 2015 WL 1223972, 

at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2015); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). 

3 See Docket No. 332. 

Case 3:13-cv-03385-JST Document 582 Filed 03/31/15 Page 3 of 8
4 

Case No. 5:13-cv-03385-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

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

520 Terix RFP Nos. 131, 135, 

151 

DENIED The court previously cabined the 

responsive period to 2008-forward.4 

Oracle shall amend its response to 

reflect this representation.

520 Terix RFP No. 149 GRANTED While the RFP was not clearly drafted, 

it is reasonable that Terix requires the 

ReadMe files for the update, patch and 

firmware files for Solaris versions 8, 9 

and 10. 

520 Terix RFP Nos. 163-165 DENIED Terix’s request is overly burdensome. 

Given Oracle’s representation that 

there were no patches for OpenSolaris 

and that it has produced audit reports 

from 2008 to the present identifying 

which patches were public at every 

period of time since, Terix has 

adequate information regarding public 

genesis and distribution of patches and 

updates. 

520 Custodial and NonCustodial SourcesDENIED Oracle has represented that it has 

searched custodial and non-custodial 

sources alike and produced everything 

it has that is responsive to the request. 

Oracle has already so represented in 

its RFP responses. Amendment is not 

required. 

521 Terix Interrogatory 29 GRANTED- IN-PARTOracle has represented that it has 

produced everything it has that is 

responsive to the request. 

Oracle shall amend its response to 

reflect this representation.

521 Terix Interrogatory 30 GRANTEDIN-PARTOracle has represented that it has 

produced everything it has that is 

responsive to the request. 

Oracle shall amend its response to 

reflect this representation.

521 Terix Interrogatory 31 GRANTEDIN-PARTOracle has represented that it has 

produced everything it has that is 

responsive to the request. 

Oracle shall amend its response to 

reflect this representation.

 

4 See id. 

Case 3:13-cv-03385-JST Document 582 Filed 03/31/15 Page 4 of 8
5 

Case No. 5:13-cv-03385-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

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

521 Terix Interrogatory 32 GRANTEDIN-PARTOracle has represented that it has 

produced everything it has that is 

responsive to the request.

Oracle shall amend its response to 

reflect this representation.

522 Spoliation DENIED Terix has failed to show that that 

Oracle’s conduct rises to the level of 

spoliation as to SunSolve.5 

Even if Oracle reasonable anticipated 

litigation when the site at issue was 

taken down, Terix has failed to show 

that it would gain any additional 

relevant information by gaining access 

to My Oracle Support or Oracle.com 

beyond what Oracle has already 

produced. And unfettered access to 

Oracle’s databases is inappropriate.6

524 Maintech Financial 

Documents 

GRANTED Oracle is entitled to (1) un-excerpted 

copies of the quarterly CFO package 

reports for 2008-2014 and (2) unexcerpted copies of the monthly 

financial overview reports for 2008-

2014. Maintech may produce the 

information with an Attorneys’ Eyes 

Only confidentiality designation 

pursuant to the protective order in this 

case. 

If necessary, upon review of the new 

documents, Oracle may re-open 

Whitney’s 30(b)(6) deposition for up 

to two hours and must limit its inquiry 

to the new documents produced. 

 

5 See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 881 F.Supp. 2d 1132, 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“A 

party seeking an adverse inference instruction (or other sanctions) based on the spoliation of 

evidence must establish the following three elements: (1) that the party having control over the 

evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) that the records were 

destroyed with a ‘culpable state of mind’; and (3) that the evidence was ‘relevant’ to the party’s 

claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or 

defense.”) (citing Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)); see also 

AMC Tech., LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., Case No. 11-cv-03403, 2013 WL 3733390, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

July 15, 2013). 

6 See In re Ford Motor Company, 345 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2003) (denying direct access and noting 

that FRCP 34(a) “allows the responding party to search his records to produce the required, 

relevant data . . . [but] does not give the requesting party the right to conduct the actual search”). 

Case 3:13-cv-03385-JST Document 582 Filed 03/31/15 Page 5 of 8
6 

Case No. 5:13-cv-03385-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

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

525 Oracle Interrogatory 13 DENIED Sevanna and Wex’s response to 

Interrogatory 13 is adequate.7 

527/5308 Maintech RFP Nos. 4, 6, 

63 

GRANTED While the RFP was not clearly drafted, 

it is reasonable that Maintech requires 

the ReadMe files for the update, patch 

and firmware files for Solaris versions 

8, 9 and 10. 

527/530 Maintech RFP Nos. 118-

122 

GRANTEDIN-PARTOracle has represented that it has 

produced everything it has that is 

responsive to the request. 

Oracle shall amend its response to 

reflect this representation.

527/530 Maintech RFP Nos. 124-

125, 140-142 

DENIED Maintech’s request is overly 

burdensome. Given Oracle’s 

representation that there were no 

patches for OpenSolaris and that it has 

produced audit reports from 2008 to 

the present identifying which patches 

were public at every period of time 

since, Maintech has adequate 

information regarding public genesis 

and distribution of patches and 

updates. 

527/530 Maintech Interrogatories 

30-31, RFP No. 87 

GRANTED- IN-PARTMaintech is entitled to certain Oracle

document retention policies, but the 

requests are drawn too broadly. 

Oracle shall produce all document 

retention policies applicable to those 

categories of documents identified by 

Maintech in the first paragraph of 

Section D in its letter.

527/530 Maintech RFP No. 143 GRANTEDIN-PARTAlthough Oracle contends that this 

court’s previous ruling9 forecloses 

granting Maintech the relief it seeks, 

 

7 See Haggarty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 10-cv-02416, 2012 WL 4113341, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Sept. 18, 2012) (“In responding to interrogatories, ‘a requirement to state all facts does not 

require a listing [by the responding party] of trivial or non-material matters.’”); S.E.C. v. Berry, 

Case No. 07-cv-04431, 2011 WL 2441706, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2011) (finding four-page 

narrative describing the facts in response to an interrogatory seeking all facts and documents 

sufficient).

8

 While the court notes that Maintech violated the letter briefing procedures set out at Docket No. 

316, in the interest of efficiency, the court will consider this round of briefing. 

9 See Docket No. 332 at 2. 

Case 3:13-cv-03385-JST Document 582 Filed 03/31/15 Page 6 of 8
7 

Case No. 5:13-cv-03385-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

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

Maintech is entitled to the set of wiki

pages10 Corwin “created during the 

ordinary course of her business as a 

Sun employee evaluating the origin of 

the Solaris source code.”11 

Maintech is not entitled to any further 

deposition of Corwin. 

527/530 Maintech RFP Nos. 137-

138 

GRANTED Maintech is entitled to understand the 

corporate structure of Oracle. To the 

extent a related 30(b)(6) topic was 

quashed, the court determined that 

such a voluminous topic was not 

appropriate as a deposition topic. But 

the information is still relevant to the 

litigation and must be produced.

527/530 Maintech Interrogatory 42 GRANTED Maintech is entitled to understand 

Oracle’s response that only some of 

the patches it created after April 19, 

2005 are derivative works of Solaris 

10. 

527/530 Maintech RFP No. 128 DENIED There is no hypothetical license

damages claim in this case. Oracle 

only seeks damages related to its own 

lost profits and profits gained by 

Defendants. 

527/530 Maintech RFP No. 134 GRANTEDIN-PARTOracle has represented that it has 

produced everything it has that is 

responsive to the request. 

Oracle shall amend its response to 

reflect this representation.

528/52912 Oracle’s Privilege Log DENIED Oracle has conducted an appropriate 

privilege review and made privilege 

designations on an appropriate and 

agreed-upon basis.13 

 

10 The court is granting production of the specific wiki pages referenced during Corwin’s 

deposition and not any type of full database. 

11 Docket No. 527 at 3. 

12 See footnote 8. 

13 See United States v. Chen, 99 F.3d 1495, 1501 (9th Cir. 1996) (“A client is entitled to hire a 

lawyer, and have his secrets kept, for legal advice regarding the client’s business affairs. This 

principle has long been the law. . . . The attorney-client privilege applies to communications 

between lawyers and their clients when the lawyers act in a counseling and planning role, as well 

as when lawyers represent their clients in litigation.”); see also Garvey v. Hulu, LLC, Case No. 11-

cv-03764, 2015 WL 294850, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2015) (only when such communications are 

Case 3:13-cv-03385-JST Document 582 Filed 03/31/15 Page 7 of 8
Case 3:13-cv-03385-JST Document 582 Filed 03/31/15 Page 8 of 8