In re Oracle Corporation Derivative Litigation

• Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware
• Decided: May 7, 2020
• Docket: CA No. 2017-0337-SG
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE SAM GLASSCOCK III STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE VICE CHANCELLOR 34 THE CIRCLE GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

May 7, 2020

Joel Friedlander, Esq. Thomas A. Beck, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq. Blake Rohrbacher, Esq. Christopher P. Quinn, Esq. Susan M. Hannigan, Esq. Bradley P. Lehman, Esq. Matthew D. Perri, Esq. FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A. Daniel E. Kaprow, Esq. 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200 RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER P.A. Wilmington, DE 19801 One Rodney Square 920 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801

A. Thompson Bayliss, Esq. E. Wade Houston, Esq. ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19807

Andrew S. Dupre, Esq. MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP 405 N. King Street, 8th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801

RE: In re Oracle Corporation Derivative Litigation C.A. No.: 2017-0337-SG

Dear Counsel:

I have reviewed the briefing concerning the NetSuite Defendants’ request for

a stay of discovery, pending resolution of their Motions to Dismiss, currently under

consideration. In the exercise of my discretion, and in light of the state of the

litigation as well as the pendency of the Motions to Dismiss, the Motion to Stay is denied. It is appropriate that discovery go forward in this long-pending matter, and

I note that the NetSuite Defendants will be key witnesses in the Lead Plaintiff’s case

regardless of the outcome of the Motions to Dismiss. In the interest of efficiency

and fairness, however, discovery of the NetSuite Defendants shall be limited to that

appropriate toward non-parties to the action, as though the Motions to Dismiss had

been granted. The parties should confer and agree on how to proceed most

efficiently in light of this discovery limitation. To the extent they cannot agree, the

parties may proceed through motions to compel/for a protective order, consistent

with my decision here. Far preferable, however, would be an agreement of the

parties as to the breadth of discovery appropriate during the pendency of the Motions

to Dismiss.

To the extent the foregoing requires an order to take effect, IT IS SO

ORDERED.

Sincerely,

/s/ Sam Glasscock III

Sam Glasscock III