Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836-24/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 SUPPLEMENTAL

DISCLOSURES

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S

REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL

DISCLOSURES

The Court is in receipt of the parties' Joint Meet and Confer Letter Regarding Rule 26 

Disclosures (Letter No. 2 of 4), filed May 9, 2006. Doc. #121. In the letter, plaintiff nSight, Inc.

seeks an order compelling defendant Oracle USA, Inc. to provide further discovery based on its

alleged failure to produce information in its initial disclosures. Specifically, nSight contends that

Oracle should have listed in its initial Rule 26 disclosures the names of Craig Conway, former CEO

of PeopleSoft, and David Duffield, PeopleSoft's founder. In turn, Oracle also seeks further

discovery involving documents that nSight has indicated it will use to support its claims, but refuses

to produce on grounds of attorney work product.

First, as to Craig Conway and David Duffield, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires

that initial disclosures set forth the names of individuals "likely to have discoverable information

that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). 

Oracle argues that it had, and currently has, no intent to use Mr. Conway or Mr. Duffield to support

its defenses, therefore it had no obligation to include their names in its initial Rule 26 disclosure. 

The Court agrees. As Oracle did not, and still does not, intend to use these witnesses, it was not

necessary to disclose them under Rule 26.

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 126 Filed 05/11/06 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

Second, if nSight intends to introduce documents as evidence to support its claims, Rule 26

requires that it provide the documents as part of its initial disclosures. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B). 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS nSight to produce, within 30 days of this Order, all

documents it intends to use as evidence to support its claims. For any documents in its possession,

custody, or control that nSight fails to produce with 30 days, it is hereby precluded from introducing

them as evidence in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2006 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 126 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 2