Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-00988/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-00988-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING

MARCH 10, 2005 AMENDED ORDER 

Case No. C-01-0988-MJJ

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 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re ORACLE CORPORATION 

SECURITIES LITIGATION 

_______________________________________

This Document Relates To: 

ALL ACTIONS. 

Master File No. C-01-0988-MJJ 

(Consolidated) 

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER AMENDING MARCH 10, 2005 

AMENDED ORDER SETTING 

DISCOVERY PLAN 

Judge Martin J. Jenkins 

Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:01-cv-00988-MJJ Document 442 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 1 of 5
 Case 3:01-cv-00988-SI Document 443 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 5
2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING

MARCH 10, 2005 AMENDED ORDER 

Case No. C-01-0988-MJJ

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 

WHEREAS, on February 3, 2006, Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”) filed its Notice of 

Appearance as Counsel of Record for Defendants Oracle Corporation, Lawrence J. Ellison, Jeffrey 

O. Henley, and Edward J. Sanderson (“Defendants”) in the above-captioned matter; and 

WHEREAS, the Court’s March 10, 2005 Amended Order Setting a Discovery Plan 

currently limits the disclosure of certain information regarding Confidential Witnesses (“CWs”) to 

(i) Oracle’s outside counsel, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw (“MBR&M”), (ii) Oracle 

Corporation’s in-house counsel, and (iii) consultants retained by MBR&M; and 

WHEREAS, Defendants have requested that Latham be allowed access to information 

regarding CWs in the above-captioned matter to the same extent previously permitted for 

MBR&M under the Court’s March 10, 2005 Amended Order Setting a Discovery Plan; 

WHEREAS, Defendants have also requested that their local counsel in Denmark, 

Bech-Bruun, be allowed access to information regarding CW 6 only for the purpose of 

representing Defendants in proceedings in Denmark regarding Defendants’ attempt to depose CW 

6 (the “Denmark Proceedings”); 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs do not object to Latham having access to information regarding 

CWs under the terms of the March 10, 2005 Amended Order Setting a Discovery Plan and do not 

object to Bech-Bruun having access to information regarding CW 6 only for the purpose of 

representing Defendants in the Denmark Proceedings; 

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE TO 

AMEND THE MARCH 10, 2005 AMENDED ORDER SETTING A DISCOVERY PLAN AS 

FOLLOWS: 

(1) Latham, and consultants hired by Latham, shall be allowed to access and review 

information concerning CWs to the same extent previously permitted for MBR&M 

under paragraph V(F) of the Court’s March 10, 2005 Amended Order Setting a 

Discovery Plan; 

(2) Latham, and consultants hired by Latham, shall be subject to the restrictions 

outlined under paragraph V(F) of the Court’s March 10, 2005 Amended Order 

Setting a Discovery Plan when accessing or reviewing information concerning 

Case 3:01-cv-00988-MJJ Document 442 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 2 of 5
 Case 3:01-cv-00988-SI Document 443 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 5
3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING

MARCH 10, 2005 AMENDED ORDER 

Case No. C-01-0988-MJJ

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 

CWs, including that consultants hired by Latham for purposes of this litigation 

shall be permitted access to information pertaining to CWs upon delivery to 

Latham of an Undertaking in the form of Exhibit A hereto; 

(3) Defendants’ local counsel in Denmark, Bech-Bruun, shall be allowed to access and 

review information relating only to CW 6. Bech-Bruun shall use such information 

solely for purposes of the Denmark Proceedings and it shall be subject to the 

restrictions outlined under paragraph V(F) of the Court’s March 10, 2005 Amended 

Order Setting a Discovery Plan. 

(4) Until such time as MBR&M withdraws as counsel for Defendants, MBR&M shall 

continue to handle CW information under the terms of the March 10, 2005 

Amended Order Setting a Discovery Plan. Defendants anticipate that MBR&M 

will file a notice of withdrawal by February 17, 2006. In the event that MBR&M 

has not filed its notice of withdrawal by February 17, 2006, the parties will in any 

event amend the March 10, 2005 Amended Order Setting a Discovery Plan to 

provide that after February 17, 2006, MBR&M will not receive any additional CW 

information and MBR&M’s use of CW information then in its possession will be 

limited to answering questions from Latham in connection with Latham’s 

representation of Defendants. 

DATED: February 7, 2006 

 Respectfully submitted, 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

By ___________/s/__________________ 

 Patrick E. Gibbs 

 Counsel for Defendants Oracle Corporation, 

 Lawrence J. Ellison, Jeffrey O. Henley, and 

 Edward J. Sanderson 

LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER 

RUDMAN and ROBBINS, LLP 

 /s/ 

By _____________________________ 

 Shawn A. Williams 

 Counsel for Plaintiffs 

 

Case 3:01-cv-00988-MJJ Document 442 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 3 of 5
 Case 3:01-cv-00988-SI Document 443 Filed 02/08/06 Page 3 of 5
4

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING

MARCH 10, 2005 AMENDED ORDER 

Case No. C-01-0988-MJJ

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 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

_______________________________ 

THE HONORABLE JOSEPH C. SPERO 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:01-cv-00988-MJJ Document 442 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 4 of 5

Dated: February 8, 2006

Case 3:01-cv-00988-SI Document 443 Filed 02/08/06 Page 4 of 5
5

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING

MARCH 10, 2005 AMENDED ORDER 

Case No. C-01-0988-MJJ

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 

EXHIBIT A 

AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY PROTECTIVE ORDER 

I, __________________, hereby acknowledge that I have read the [Proposed] Order re 

Discovery Plan that was issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California on March ___, 2005, in the case of: In re Oracle Corporation Securities Litigation, 

Lead Case No. 417511, Case No. C-01-0988-MJJ. 

I recognize that I am bound by the terms of that Order and I agree to comply with those 

terms. I fully understand that any disclosure of the identities of the confidential witnesses to 

anyone other than those individuals expressly permitted by the Order could expose me to sanctions 

and punishment in the nature of contempt. I hereby agree to abide by the obligation and 

conditions of the Order. 

DATED: __________________ 

___________________________________ 

Case 3:01-cv-00988-MJJ Document 442 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 5 of 5
 Case 3:01-cv-00988-SI Document 443 Filed 02/08/06 Page 5 of 5