Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-405/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 OVERRULING

RULE 26(a) NON-DISCLOSURE

OBJECTION TO STEFANO

MAZZOCCHI AS WITNESS

At the final pretrial conference, the subject of trial witnesses undisclosed under Rule

26(a) came up. Google wanted to present a witness (Simon Phipps) on a topic not disclosed

under Rule 26(a), and the Court allowed Google to do so contingent on presenting him for a

two-hour deposition. For its part, Oracle wanted to present a witness (Stefano Mazzocchi)

never disclosed by name under Rule 26(a) and the Court was about to allow it subject to a

deposition when Google said it didn’t want or need a deposition given the witness now worked

for Google (such that a private interview would suffice).

No order was made on Mazzocchi, however, because the Court received the impression

that this detail would be worked out between counsel. Evidently, that was hoping for too much.

Then at the outset of trial, Google objected to any reference in Oracle’s opening to

Mazzocchi and an email he wrote about how “illegal” the Apache Harmony Project was,

arguing again that he had not been disclosed under Rule 26(a). By this point, the judge had

forgotten what had happened at the final pretrial conference, so the judge ordered Oracle to

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1875 Filed 05/12/16 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

delete the Mazzocchi reference from the opening and said the Rule 26(a) issue would be

resolved later.

Now that the judge has gone back and read the transcript from the final pretrial

conference and had his memory refreshed, it is evident that Google is seeking to have it both

ways. Google won the opportunity to present a witness previously undisclosed on the trial topic

on condition of a two-hour deposition but opposes Oracle getting the same relief. The judge

would have granted Oracle such relief at the final pretrial conference had Google asked for a

deposition, but it didn’t need it since the witness now happened to be a Google employee. 

Moreover, it is evident that little prejudice will flow from the nondisclosure since everyone has

known about the Apache email Mazzocchi will be asked to authenticate.

The Rule 26(a) disclosure objection is OVERRULED and Stefano Mazzocchi will not be

excluded on that ground. Oracle, however, still must properly subpoena him. If it is true that

Google has taken it upon itself to advise Mazzocchi that he can disregard the subpoena, then

Mazzocchi needs separate counsel. This order reserves on the issue whether the Mazzocchi

document is self-authenticating.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1875 Filed 05/12/16 Page 2 of 2