ORACLE CORPORATION’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENTCASE NO. 1-11-CV-203163
Defendant Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) hereby submits this Case ManagementConference Statement for the Second Case Management Conference (“CMC”), scheduled forNovember 22, 2011.Oracle is filing this single-party Case Management Statement because HP refused to signon to a Joint Case Management Statement unless Oracle removed its own explanation for thefiling of its forthcoming Amended Cross-Complaint (set forth in Section I, below). HP’sposition is curious, at best, because a mere three days ago, HP took Oracle to task for not tellingthe Court the basis for its Amended Cross-Complaint, only providing “mysterious” hints. Oraclebelieves it necessary to preview the basis for the additional causes of action that Oracle willbring in the amended pleading because those new claims contribute to the need for a new trialdate in this matter.
Oracle asked for this Case Management Conference, over HP’s objection, to request thatthe Court move the existing trial date. It did so for two reasons.First, discovery in this matter has proven to be broader, more complex and more timeconsuming than either party anticipated. Despite both parties’ intense and best efforts, it hasnow become apparent that the discovery necessitated by the parties’ claims simply cannot becompleted in advance of the present trial date of February 27, 2012. HP claims that it can meetthe trial date notwithstanding the current discovery status and schedule, but this is completelyunrealistic. The parties are barely halfway through their initial document productions (havingproduced hundreds of thousands of documents, with hundreds of thousands more to come), andthe scope of discovery remains contested and unsettled. The full scope of discovery will noteven be finalized for weeks or months to come. No depositions of
have beenconducted, and none will be able to be conducted effectively until weeks from now (particularlygiven the approaching holiday season). Indeed, Oracle is the only party to have noticed anydepositions so far, and even for those—the two individuals who directly negotiated the alleged“contractual obligation” underlying the bulk of HP’s claims in this case—HP has objected, andthe parties are simultaneously filing IDC briefs on that very issue. No third party depositions
E-FILED: Nov 18, 2011 3:29 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-11-CV-203163 Filing #G-36984