Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 3:2010cv03561 - Document 146 (N.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER SCHEDULING HEARING ON COMPETITIVE DECISION MAKERS. Signed by Judge Donna M. Ryu on 5/20/11. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2011)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 ORACLE AMERICA, INC., 12 Plaintiff(s), 13 GOOGLE INC., 15 ORDER SCHEDULING HEARING ON COMPETITIVE DECISION MAKERS v. 14 No. C-10-03561 WHA (DMR) Defendant(s). ___________________________________/ 16 17 On May 18, 2011, the parties filed a joint letter [Docket No. 145] regarding a dispute as to 18 whether four Oracle in-house attorneys are involved in "competitive decision-making" for purposes 19 of determining whether they may review information designated as "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- 20 ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" under the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this case. [Docket 21 No. 66]. 22 The question of whether an individual is involved in competitive decision-making must be 23 determined on a case-by-case basis. U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 730 F.2d 1465, 1468 (Fed. 24 Cir. 1984). The Stipulated Protective Order defines competitive decision-making as "decision- 25 making relating to any and all decisions made in light of or that take into account information 26 regarding a competitor or potential competitor, including but not limited to such decisions regarding 27 contracts, marketing, employment, pricing, product or service development or design, product or 28 service offerings, research and development, or licensing, acquisition or enforcement of intellectual 1 property rights (other than this action), provided, however, that this phrase shall be interpreted in 2 accordance with the relevant case law." Stipulated Protective Order, Docket No. 66 at ¶ 7.4(a)(1). 3 As described by a leading case, "[t]he phrase [competitive decision-making] would appear 4 serviceable as shorthand for a counsel's activities, association, and relationship with a client that are 5 such as to involve counsel's advice and participation in any or all of the client's decisions (pricing, 6 product design, etc.) made in light of similar or corresponding information about a competitor." 7 U.S. Steel Corp., 730 F.2d at 1468 n.3. 8 9 By May 26, 2011, Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. shall file detailed, substantial, factual and non-conclusory declarations by each of the four Oracle counsel at issue in this matter. The declarations shall set forth counsel's background, as well as his/her duties, activities, associations 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 and relationships as they relate to the definition of competitive decision-making set forth above. 12 The Court shall conduct a hearing on this matter on May 31, 2011 at 11:30 a.m. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: May 20, 2011 17 DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.