Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-285/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 GOOGLE INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-03561 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF

FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Oracle seeks relief from Judge Ryu’s order finding as untimely its motion to compel the

production of over seventeen thousand documents that Google identified on its final privilege

log during the discovery period before the first trial in this action.

The initial scheduling order, issued on November 19, 2010, set the deadline to complete

fact discovery as July 29, 2011 (Dkt. No. 56). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 37-3, the deadline

to file any motions to compel responses to discovery requests was August 5, 2011. In normal

course, both sides should have produced their privilege logs in advance of the deadline, so that

any discovery motions could be timely filed. It appears that both sides neglected to produce

their final privilege logs until discovery was about to close, and on July 28, 2011, the parties

filed a stipulated request for an extension of the deadline to conduct discovery, including the

production of final privilege logs (Dkt. No. 246). That request also sought an extension of the

deadline to file discovery motions. 

On August 1, 2011, the Court granted the parties’ request to extend the deadline to

conduct discovery and set the deadline to complete document discovery and to produce

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1420 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 Notwithstanding the Court’s deadline, on August 5, 2011, the parties jointly informed Judge Ryu that

they may need her assistance in resolving issues relating to privilege logs produced after the deadline to move to

compel (Dkt. No. 275). Oracle did not raise any issues with Google’s August 15, 2011 privilege log until

November 2015. Indeed, the parties engaged in extensive litigation relating to the so-called “Lindholm email”

(identified on an earlier privilege log), and referred to entries on the latter privilege log (Dkt. No. 336).

2

 Oracle’s contention that Google waived the right to challenge the timeliness of discovery motions

brought after the August 5, 2011 by jointly informing Judge Ryu that further issues might arise is unavailing. 

That letter did not contain any indication that the parties had waived any defenses, including timeliness, to such

motions. It merely informed Judge Ryu that such motions may yet arise. 

Oracle also suggests that the Court can avoid the “clearly erroneous” standard applicable to Judge

Ryu’s order by amending the scheduling order. No good cause exists to amend the scheduling order to allow

Oracle to bring this motion.

2

privilege logs as August 15, 2011 (Dkt. No. 257). That order denied the parties’ request to

extend the deadline to file discovery motions, noting “[s]pecifically, the deadline for filing

discovery motions shall not be extended and shall remain as before” (id. ¶ 6). 

If either side had been unhappy with the failure of the other side to produce privilege

logs in advance of the deadline, it could have requested relief from the Court; however, no such

relief was ever requested. Instead, the parties got to the end of discovery and jointly requested

an extension for the production of final privilege logs, inter alia. As described, the Court

allowed certain extensions but refused to allow further motion practice. It may be true that as a

result of this scenario both sides have lost the opportunity to further litigate issues of privilege

that could only have come to light after the final privilege logs were submitted.1

This was a foreseeable consequence of both sides’ strategies, namely to postpone the

production of their final privilege logs until the last possible minute. Indeed, while Google

added twenty-eight thousand new entries to its privilege log at the deadline August 15, Oracle

added three hundred thousand new entries on the same day. Oracle’s instant request to contest

seventeen thousand entries, now that the case has returned from the court of appeals and the

parties have conducted limited supplemental discovery, is beyond the pale. Under no

circumstances can Oracle reopen this issue that was closed more four years ago — and which

Oracle failed to litigate at the time — during this period of limited supplemental discovery. 

Judge Ryu’s order finding Oracle’s motion untimely was not “clearly erroneous or contrary to

law.” See Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).2

 

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1420 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Judge Ryu’s order is hereby AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1420 Filed 01/11/16 Page 3 of 3