Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
11-08-25 Order to Put Back Lindholm Email

11-08-25 Order to Put Back Lindholm Email

Ratings: (0)|Views: 88 |Likes:
Published by Florian Mueller
August 25, 2011 order by Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu, requiring Google to put back the damning Lindholm email into the evidence record of the Oracle case. For further detail, please visit the FOSS Patents blog at http://fosspatents.blogspot.com
August 25, 2011 order by Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu, requiring Google to put back the damning Lindholm email into the evidence record of the Oracle case. For further detail, please visit the FOSS Patents blog at http://fosspatents.blogspot.com

More info:

Published by: Florian Mueller on Aug 26, 2011
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/12/2014

pdf

 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAORACLE AMERICA, INC.,Plaintiff,v.GOOGLE, INC.,Defendant.___________________________________/ No. C-10-03561-WHA (DMR)
ORDER
 
RE DISCOVERY HEARING OFAUGUST 25, 2011
 Today the court held a hearing on the parties’ joint discovery letter of August 5, 2011[Docket No. 277], which concerned Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to (re)produce certaindocuments, which the court will collectively refer to as the Lindholm Emails. During the hearingthe court granted Plaintiff’s motion, and a separate order detailing the court’s reasoning will beforthcoming.After hearing the court’s ruling, Defendant indicated its intent to appeal the decision to JudgeAlsup. Defendant also appeared to believe that it need not produce the Lindholm Emails until JudgeAlsup rules on the appeal. Defendant is mistaken. T
he filing of objections does not stay the operation of the court’s order.
 Hanni v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
, No. 08-732-CW, 2009 WL 1505286, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 27,2009);
accord Blessey Mar. Servs., Inc. v. Jeffboat, LLC 
, No. 10-1863, 2011 WL 3349844, at *4 (E.D. La.Aug. 3, 2011) (collecting cases).
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document354 Filed08/25/11 Page1 of 2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->