Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836-23/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 GRANTING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO

DOCUMENT REQUESTS,

INTERROGATORIES, AND TO

PRODUCE WITNESS FOR DEPOSITION

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

Subpoenas (Letter No. 3 of 4), filed May 9, 2006. Doc. #122. In the letter, defendant Oracle USA,

Inc. (as successor to PeopleSoft, Inc.) seeks an order compelling: (1) responses from plaintiff nSight,

Inc. to its requests for documents served by Oracle on October 18, 2005; (2) responses to its requests

to interrogatories served on October 18; and (3) the deposition of nSight's president, Henry Gong,

which Oracle noticed on December 6, 2005. nSight did not respond to Oracle's discovery requests,

arguing that it brought suit against PeopleSoft, Inc. and, therefore, Oracle does not have standing to

propound discovery requests.

Upon review of the parties' letter and relevant legal authority, the Court hereby GRANTS

Oracle's request. First, it is clear that Oracle is the successor obligor as to any and all obligations

that may be owed to nSight because PeopleSoft, Inc. no longer exists. See Collins Decl., Doc. #74. 

Thus, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25, "in the absence of a motion for substitution and an

order of the Court, the action will be continued in the name of the original party to the suit, the

successor in interest being bound by any judgment resulting from the litigation." International

Rediscount Corp. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 425 F. Supp. 669, 674 (D. Del. 1977); see

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 125 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

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 25©). "Rule 25©) makes plain that when a transfer of interest occurs the case

continues seamlessly making substitution unnecessary. Kraebel v. New York City Department of

Housing Preservation and Development, 2002 WL 14364, *4 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). As Oracle is

PeopleSoft's successor-in-interest, it is properly in this case. 

Second, Oracle appeared in this case on September 26, 2005, when it answered nSight's

Third Amended Complaint. nSight, at that time, did not object to Oracle's answering as successor to

PeopleSoft. Doc. #67. 

Finally, on March 10, 2006, the parties attended a further status conference before Judge

Chesney, at which time it was agreed that the parties would stipulate to formal substitution of Oracle

for PeopleSoft as defendant in this action. Doc. #102. Based on these facts, the Court finds no merit

to nSight's claim that Oracle has no standing to propound discovery. Accordingly, the Court hereby

ORDERS nSight to respond to Oracle's document requests and interrogatories, as well as make

Henry Gong available for deposition, within 30 days from the date of this Order. Failure to comply

with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including evidence preclusion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2006 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 125 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 2