The opinion
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