1 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP RICHARD J. POCKER (NV Bar No. 3568) BENJAMIN P. SMITH (pro hac vice) 2 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 800 JOHN A. POLITO (pro hac vice) Las Vegas, NV 89101 SHARON R. SMITH (pro hac vice) 3 Telephone: 702.382.7300 One Market, Spear Street Tower Facsimile: 702.382.2755 San Francisco, CA 94105 4 rpocker@bsfllp.com Telephone: 415.442.1000 Facsimile: 415.442.1001 5 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP benjamin.smith@morganlewis.com WILLIAM ISAACSON (pro hac vice) john.polito@morganlewis.com 6 KAREN DUNN (pro hac vice) sharon.smith@morganlewis.com 1401 New York Avenue, NW, 11th Floor 7 Washington, DC 20005 DORIAN DALEY (pro hac vice) Telephone: (202) 237-2727 DEBORAH K. MILLER (pro hac vice) 8 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 JAMES C. MAROULIS (pro hac vice) wisaacson@bsfllp.com ORACLE CORPORATION 9 kdunn@bsfllp.com 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 10 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP Telephone: 650.506.4846 STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (pro hac vice) Facsimile: 650.506.7114 11 BEKO O. REBLITZ-RICHARDSON dorian.daley@oracle.com (pro hac vice) deborah.miller@oracle.com 12 44 Montgomery St., 41st Floor jim.maroulis@oracle.com San Francisco, CA 94104 13 Telephone: 415.293.6800 Facsimile: 415.293.6899 14 sholtzman@bsfllp.com brichardson@bsfllp.com 15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16 Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle America, Inc. and Oracle International Corp. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 19 ORACLE USA, INC.; a Colorado corporation; Case No. 2:10-cv-0106-LRH-VCF 20 ORACLE AMERICA, INC.; a Delaware corporation; and ORACLE INTERNATIONAL ORACLE’S MOTION FOR ORDER 21 CORPORATION, a California corporation, SHORTENING TIME RE: ORACLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND Plaintiffs, 22 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND v. AUTHORITIES RE POST- 23 RIMINI STREET, INC., a Nevada corporation; INJUNCTION REQUESTS FOR and SETH RAVIN, an individual, PRODUCTION 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle America, Inc., and Oracle International Corporation 2 (collectively “Oracle”) respectfully move the Court for an order shortening the time for briefing 3 Oracle’s Motion to Compel and Memorandum of Points and Authorities re Post-Injunction 4 Requests for Production (“Motion to Compel”) filed on August 19, 2019. Because the Motion 5 concerns an abbreviated discovery schedule, including expert disclosures in less than three weeks, 6 Oracle requests that a response to its Motion to Compel be filed on or before August 26, 2019 7 (seven days after filing Oracle’s motion, as opposed to the ordinary fourteen days), with Oracle’s 8 reply due on or before August 29, 2019 (three days after the filing of any response, as opposed to 9 the ordinary seven days). Defendant Rimini Street, Inc. (“Rimini”) has been notified of and has 10 agreed to Oracle’s proposed expedited briefing schedule. This Motion is based upon the 11 Declaration of David R. Kocan, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities that follow, the entire 12 record in this action, and such other matters and arguments as may be presented to the Court. 13 DATED: August 19, 2019 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 14 15 By: /s/ John A. Polito John A. Polito 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle 17 America, Inc. and Oracle International Corp. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DECLARATION OF DAVID R. KOCAN 2 I, David R. Kocan, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, counsel of record in this 4 action for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle America, Inc. and Oracle International Corp. 5 (collectively, “Oracle”). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and 6 would competently testify to them if called upon to do so. 7 2. On August 19, 2019, Oracle filed its Motion to Compel in this action. Oracle’s 8 Motion to Compel seeks an order compelling Defendant Rimini Street, Inc. (“Rimini”) to produce 9 documents in response to Oracle’s Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents 1–5 and 10 8–11 (“Supplemental RFPs”). 11 3. Under the Federal and Local Rules, Rimini’s response to Oracle’s Motion to 12 Compel would be due September 2, 2019. Any reply from Oracle would be due September 9, 13 2019. Oracle’s initial expert disclosures are due September 5, 2019, and discovery closes 14 October 8, 2019. 15 4. Further delays by Rimini in producing the custodial documents that are the subject 16 of Oracle’s Motion to Compel would severely prejudice Oracle, including with respect to its 17 disclosure of expert witnesses. 18 5. Oracle has moved as expediently as possible in filing the Motion to Compel—a 19 process that was prolonged due to extensive meet and confer efforts, during which Oracle 20 repeatedly attempted to persuade Rimini to provide the discovery at issue. The Parties exchanged 21 correspondence regarding the issues raised in Oracle’s Motion to Compel on July 3, July 9, July 22 12, July 17, July 18, July 23, July 26, July 29, July 30, August 2, August 5, August 11, August 23 13, and August 16, 2019. The Parties conducted telephonic meet-and-confers on July 3, July 19, 24 July 24, and August 1, 2019 concerning these issues. Oracle provides additional information 25 regarding the Parties’ meet and confer efforts in Oracle’s Motion to Compel. 26 6. Rimini has not yet produced any custodial documents, instead taking the position 27 that Oracle must agree to a significantly underinclusive set of custodians and search terms before 28 1 Rimini will produce any custodial documents. Rimini also refuses to agree to any schedule for 2 custodial production, insisting that it has no obligation to produce any custodial production before 3 the close of discovery. 4 7. On August 11, 2019, Oracle notified Rimini that it would move forward with a 5 motion to compel unless Rimini agreed, by the close of business on August 13, to: (1) search for 6 documents from the requested custodians hitting on Oracle’s proposed search terms, (2) produce 7 responsive custodial documents on a rolling basis beginning immediately, and (3) agree to a 8 reasonable time frame for production. On August 13, 2019, Rimini refused to agree to Oracle’s 9 request for the production of relevant custodial materials, instead continuing its delay tactics. 10 8. Also on August 11, 2019, Oracle proposed the shortened briefing schedule that 11 this Motion requests, whereby Rimini’s opposition would be due one week after Oracle filed its 12 Motion to Compel and Oracle’s reply would be due three days thereafter. On August 13, 2019, 13 Rimini requested that Oracle’s proposed briefing schedule include specific filing and briefing 14 dates. 15 9. On August 15, 2019, Oracle notified Rimini that it would file its Motion to 16 Compel on August 16, 2019 or August 19, 2019, and again proposed this Motion’s expedited 17 briefing schedule such that Rimini’s opposition would be due one week after Oracle filed the 18 Motion to Compel (either August 23 or August 26), and Oracle’s reply would be due three days 19 later. On August 16, 2019, Rimini agreed to Oracle’s proposed expedited briefing schedule. 20 10. I do not believe that Rimini would be prejudiced by a resolution of Oracle’s 21 Motion to Compel on an expedited basis because Rimini is well aware of the relevant facts—this 22 case began over a decade ago and concerns Rimini’s core business model—and because Rimini 23 has long been aware of Oracle’s positions as articulated in the Motion to Compel, which were 24 repeatedly expressed by Oracle during the course of the Parties’ meet and confer efforts. 25 Moreover, Rimini itself has consented to Oracle’s expedited briefing schedule. 26 11. Were this Court to grant this Motion for an order shortening time, Oracle proposes 27 that Rimini is provided seven days, i.e., a deadline of Monday, August 26, 2019, to respond to 28 1 Oracle’s Motion to Compel, as opposed to the usual 14-day period for response.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP RICHARD J. POCKER (NV Bar No. 3568) BENJAMIN P. SMITH (pro hac vice) 2 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 800 JOHN A. POLITO (pro hac vice) Las Vegas, NV 89101 SHARON R. SMITH (pro hac vice) 3 Telephone: 702.382.7300 One Market, Spear Street Tower Facsimile: 702.382.2755 San Francisco, CA 94105 4 rpocker@bsfllp.com Telephone: 415.442.1000 Facsimile: 415.442.1001 5 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP benjamin.smith@morganlewis.com WILLIAM ISAACSON (pro hac vice) john.polito@morganlewis.com 6 KAREN DUNN (pro hac vice) sharon.smith@morganlewis.com 1401 New York Avenue, NW, 11th Floor 7 Washington, DC 20005 DORIAN DALEY (pro hac vice) Telephone: (202) 237-2727 DEBORAH K. MILLER (pro hac vice) 8 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 JAMES C. MAROULIS (pro hac vice) wisaacson@bsfllp.com ORACLE CORPORATION 9 kdunn@bsfllp.com 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 10 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP Telephone: 650.506.4846 STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (pro hac vice) Facsimile: 650.506.7114 11 BEKO O. REBLITZ-RICHARDSON dorian.daley@oracle.com (pro hac vice) deborah.miller@oracle.com 12 44 Montgomery St., 41st Floor jim.maroulis@oracle.com San Francisco, CA 94104 13 Telephone: 415.293.6800 Facsimile: 415.293.6899 14 sholtzman@bsfllp.com brichardson@bsfllp.com 15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16 Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle America, Inc. and Oracle International Corp. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 19 ORACLE USA, INC.; a Colorado corporation; Case No. 2:10-cv-0106-LRH-VCF 20 ORACLE AMERICA, INC.; a Delaware corporation; and ORACLE INTERNATIONAL ORACLE’S MOTION FOR ORDER 21 CORPORATION, a California corporation, SHORTENING TIME RE: ORACLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND Plaintiffs, 22 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND v. AUTHORITIES RE POST- 23 RIMINI STREET, INC., a Nevada corporation; INJUNCTION REQUESTS FOR and SETH RAVIN, an individual, PRODUCTION 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle America, Inc., and Oracle International Corporation 2 (collectively “Oracle”) respectfully move the Court for an order shortening the time for briefing 3 Oracle’s Motion to Compel and Memorandum of Points and Authorities re Post-Injunction 4 Requests for Production (“Motion to Compel”) filed on August 19, 2019. Because the Motion 5 concerns an abbreviated discovery schedule, including expert disclosures in less than three weeks, 6 Oracle requests that a response to its Motion to Compel be filed on or before August 26, 2019 7 (seven days after filing Oracle’s motion, as opposed to the ordinary fourteen days), with Oracle’s 8 reply due on or before August 29, 2019 (three days after the filing of any response, as opposed to 9 the ordinary seven days). Defendant Rimini Street, Inc. (“Rimini”) has been notified of and has 10 agreed to Oracle’s proposed expedited briefing schedule. This Motion is based upon the 11 Declaration of David R. Kocan, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities that follow, the entire 12 record in this action, and such other matters and arguments as may be presented to the Court. 13 DATED: August 19, 2019 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 14 15 By: /s/ John A. Polito John A. Polito 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle 17 America, Inc. and Oracle International Corp. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DECLARATION OF DAVID R. KOCAN 2 I, David R. Kocan, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, counsel of record in this 4 action for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle America, Inc. and Oracle International Corp. 5 (collectively, “Oracle”). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and 6 would competently testify to them if called upon to do so. 7 2. On August 19, 2019, Oracle filed its Motion to Compel in this action. Oracle’s 8 Motion to Compel seeks an order compelling Defendant Rimini Street, Inc. (“Rimini”) to produce 9 documents in response to Oracle’s Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents 1–5 and 10 8–11 (“Supplemental RFPs”). 11 3. Under the Federal and Local Rules, Rimini’s response to Oracle’s Motion to 12 Compel would be due September 2, 2019. Any reply from Oracle would be due September 9, 13 2019. Oracle’s initial expert disclosures are due September 5, 2019, and discovery closes 14 October 8, 2019. 15 4. Further delays by Rimini in producing the custodial documents that are the subject 16 of Oracle’s Motion to Compel would severely prejudice Oracle, including with respect to its 17 disclosure of expert witnesses. 18 5. Oracle has moved as expediently as possible in filing the Motion to Compel—a 19 process that was prolonged due to extensive meet and confer efforts, during which Oracle 20 repeatedly attempted to persuade Rimini to provide the discovery at issue. The Parties exchanged 21 correspondence regarding the issues raised in Oracle’s Motion to Compel on July 3, July 9, July 22 12, July 17, July 18, July 23, July 26, July 29, July 30, August 2, August 5, August 11, August 23 13, and August 16, 2019. The Parties conducted telephonic meet-and-confers on July 3, July 19, 24 July 24, and August 1, 2019 concerning these issues. Oracle provides additional information 25 regarding the Parties’ meet and confer efforts in Oracle’s Motion to Compel. 26 6. Rimini has not yet produced any custodial documents, instead taking the position 27 that Oracle must agree to a significantly underinclusive set of custodians and search terms before 28 1 Rimini will produce any custodial documents. Rimini also refuses to agree to any schedule for 2 custodial production, insisting that it has no obligation to produce any custodial production before 3 the close of discovery. 4 7. On August 11, 2019, Oracle notified Rimini that it would move forward with a 5 motion to compel unless Rimini agreed, by the close of business on August 13, to: (1) search for 6 documents from the requested custodians hitting on Oracle’s proposed search terms, (2) produce 7 responsive custodial documents on a rolling basis beginning immediately, and (3) agree to a 8 reasonable time frame for production. On August 13, 2019, Rimini refused to agree to Oracle’s 9 request for the production of relevant custodial materials, instead continuing its delay tactics. 10 8. Also on August 11, 2019, Oracle proposed the shortened briefing schedule that 11 this Motion requests, whereby Rimini’s opposition would be due one week after Oracle filed its 12 Motion to Compel and Oracle’s reply would be due three days thereafter. On August 13, 2019, 13 Rimini requested that Oracle’s proposed briefing schedule include specific filing and briefing 14 dates. 15 9. On August 15, 2019, Oracle notified Rimini that it would file its Motion to 16 Compel on August 16, 2019 or August 19, 2019, and again proposed this Motion’s expedited 17 briefing schedule such that Rimini’s opposition would be due one week after Oracle filed the 18 Motion to Compel (either August 23 or August 26), and Oracle’s reply would be due three days 19 later. On August 16, 2019, Rimini agreed to Oracle’s proposed expedited briefing schedule. 20 10. I do not believe that Rimini would be prejudiced by a resolution of Oracle’s 21 Motion to Compel on an expedited basis because Rimini is well aware of the relevant facts—this 22 case began over a decade ago and concerns Rimini’s core business model—and because Rimini 23 has long been aware of Oracle’s positions as articulated in the Motion to Compel, which were 24 repeatedly expressed by Oracle during the course of the Parties’ meet and confer efforts. 25 Moreover, Rimini itself has consented to Oracle’s expedited briefing schedule. 26 11. Were this Court to grant this Motion for an order shortening time, Oracle proposes 27 that Rimini is provided seven days, i.e., a deadline of Monday, August 26, 2019, to respond to 28 1 Oracle’s Motion to Compel, as opposed to the usual 14-day period for response. Oracle also 2 proposes a reply deadline of Thursday, August 29, 2019 (three days rather than the ordinary 3 seven). These shortened deadlines would allow the Motion to Compel to be resolved in time for 4 Oracle to receive discovery needed to prepare its initial expert disclosures without prejudice. 5 12. This Motion for an order shortening time is not made for any improper purpose 6 and is brought to allow this Court an opportunity to rule on the issues presented in Oracle’s 7 Motion to Compel in a timely fashion allowing complete relief should it so order. 8 13. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the 9 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration is executed at San Francisco, California, on 10 August 19, 2019. 11 12 13 /s/ David R. Kocan David R. Kocan 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 Local Rule IA 6-1(d) provides that a motion to shorten time will be granted upon an 3 attorney’s declaration describing the circumstances that constitute good cause to justify 4 shortening of time. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) (giving courts power to change a briefing 5 date when a party demonstrates “good cause”). 6 As Oracle’s Motion to Compel details, Defendant Rimini Street, Inc. (“Rimini”) continues 7 to thwart Oracle’s ability to obtain discovery that is relevant and necessary to the injunction- 8 enforcement issues presently before the Court on an expedited schedule. Oracle attempted to 9 resolve the issues raised in the Motion to Compel without court intervention, as is required in this 10 District. See, e.g., ShuffleMaster, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D. Nev. 11 1996). Since the inception of the injunction discovery period, Oracle has diligently sought to 12 reach agreement with Rimini regarding custodial document production. Oracle has proposed 13 multiple concessions in an effort to reach compromise with Rimini on this discovery, despite 14 being entitled to such discovery. Rimini has obstructed at every turn. 15 Local Rule 7-2(b) provides that responses to a motion shall be filed and served within 16 fourteen days after service of the motion, and reply points and authorities shall be filed within 17 seven days after service of the response. The Post-Injunction Scheduling Order sets a deadline of 18 September 5, 2019 for expert-witness disclosure. Under the ordinary schedule for motions 19 briefing, Oracle’s Motion to Compel would not be fully briefed until September 6, 2019, meaning 20 that any decision on the Motion would take place after the expert disclosure deadline. Without 21 the discovery that is the subject of the Motion to Compel, Oracle will be severely prejudiced as it 22 relates to its disclosure of expert witnesses. Thus, particularly given the upcoming expert 23 disclosure deadline and Rimini’s agreement to Oracle’s proposed expedited briefing schedule, 24 Oracle respectfully submits that it is appropriate and necessary for the Court to hear Oracle’s 25 Motion to Compel on a shortened briefing schedule. 26 For the foregoing reasons, including the specific facts alleged in the declaration 27 accompanying this Motion, Oracle respectfully requests this Court grant its request for an order 28 1 shortening time as follows: 2 1. Any response to Oracle’s Motion to Compel shall be filed and served no later than 3 August 26, 2019, seven days after the filing of the Motion; and 4 2. Oracle’s reply in support of its Motion shall be filed and served no later than August 5 29, 2019, three days after the filing of Rimini’s response. 6 DATED: August 19, 2019 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 7 8 By: /s/ John A. Polito 9 John A. Polito 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle America, Inc. and Oracle International Corp. 1] 12 13 14 IT ISSO ORDERED:
16 HON. CAM FERENBACH 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED: 8-29-2019 18 TX 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MPA ISO ORACLE’S MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME RE: ORACLE’S MOTION TO
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I certify that on August 19, 2019, I electronically transmitted the foregoing ORACLE’S 3 MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME RE: MOTION TO COMPEL AND 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES to the Clerk’s Office using the 5 CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to all counsel in this 6 matter; all counsel are CM/ECF registrants. 7 8 DATED: August 19, 2019 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 9 10 By: /s/ John A. Polito John A. Polito 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle 12 America, Inc. and Oracle International Corp. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28