Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Oracle America, Inc v. Innovative Technology

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


April 18, 2011

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARING DATE; AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE REGARDING PENDING MOTIONS

On April 6, 2011, Defendant Innovative Technology Distributors, LLC ("ITD") moved to 19 stay, dismiss, or transfer this action to the District of New Jersey on the basis of a "first-filed" 20 action in New Jersey. See Dkt. #36. That motion is noticed for a hearing on July 21, 2011. 21

On April 8, 2011, Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. ("Oracle") filed a motion to disqualify 22 attorney Vicky Dal Molin and to disqualify ITD's outside counsel Lowenstein Sandler PC 23 ("Lowenstein"). See Dkt. #38. According to Oracle, Vicky Dal Molin is ITD's General Counsel, 24 and formerly an in-house attorney with Sun Microsytems, Inc ("Sun") for nine years. In January 25 2010, Oracle acquired Sun. Oracle argues that Lowenstein must be disqualified as outside counsel 26 because it "partnered with Ms. Dal Molin to represent ITD against Oracle knowing full well of her 27 28 prior attorney-client relationship with Sun and making no effort to avoid receiving Oracle's 2 confidential information possessed by Ms. Dal Molin." Id. at 2. 3

Oracle's motion to disqualify is also noticed for a hearing on July 21, 2011, but Oracle has 4 filed a motion for administrative relief to advance the hearing date to June 16, 2011. Oracle's 5 motion to expedite the hearing date is DENIED. However, the Court finds an expedited briefing 6 schedule appropriate for both motions. 7

Accordingly, with respect to ITD's motion to stay, dismiss, or transfer [dkt. #33], Oracle's 8 opposition is due by Wednesday, May 4, 2011, and ITD's reply is due by Wednesday, May 11, 9 2011. 10

With respect to Oracle's motion to disqualify certain counsel [dkt. #38], ITD's opposition is due by Wednesday, May 4, 2011, and Oracle's reply is due by Wednesday, May 11, 2011. 12

If the Court determines that either or both of these motions are suitable for determination 13 without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court will vacate the July 21, 2011 motion hearing date and issue an Order or Orders on the papers.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110418

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.