|
Oracle v. Google - 706 Expert |
|
Wednesday, September 14 2011 @ 09:00 AM EDT
|
We have talked in the past about the appointment of Dr. Kearl as the Rule 706 expert in the Oracle v. Google case, but we really haven't focused on the purpose of a Rule 706 expert or the breadth of Dr. Kearl's assignment. The latter became more clear last week when Judge Alsup entered his order 413 [PDF] formally appointing Dr. Kearl and laying out the scope of his assignment.
Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:
Rule 706. Court Appointed Experts
(a) Appointment.
The court may on its own motion or on the motion of any party enter an order to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed, and may request the parties to submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert witnesses agreed upon by the parties, and may appoint expert witnesses of its own selection. An expert witness shall not be appointed by the court unless the witness consents to act. A witness so appointed shall be informed of the witness' duties by the court in writing, a copy of which shall be filed with the clerk, or at a conference in which the parties shall have opportunity to participate. A witness so appointed shall advise the parties of the witness' findings, if any; the witness' deposition may be taken by any party; and the witness may be called to testify by the court or any party. The witness shall be subject to cross-examination by each party, including a party calling the witness.
(b) Compensation.
Expert witnesses so appointed are entitled to reasonable compensation in whatever sum the court may allow. The compensation thus fixed is payable from funds which may be provided by law in criminal cases and civil actions and proceedings involving just compensation under the fifth amendment. In other civil actions and proceedings the compensation shall be paid by the parties in such proportion and at such time as the court directs, and thereafter charged in like manner as other costs.
(c) Disclosure of appointment.
In the exercise of its discretion, the court may authorize disclosure to the jury of the fact that the court appointed the expert witness.
(d) Parties' experts of own selection.
Nothing in this rule limits the parties in calling expert witnesses of their own selection.
The purpose of appointing a Rule 706 expert is to provide expert testimony to the jury on the subject of damages independent of the expert testimony that may be provided by each party on the subject. Damages can be complex, and the issue of damages in this case promises to be about as complex as it comes, e.g., tying Google advertising revenue to the Android platform. Dr. Kearl's responsibility and independence is reflected in this section of the order:
Dr. Kearl will prepare and submit a separate expert report which will independently a) critique the damages expert reports submitted by each side, b) provide his assessment of any or all issues raised or presented in the damages expert reports of the parties, and c) address each additional issue he believes should be evaluated in order to provide the jury with a complete and independent view of damages in this case.
And here:
[T]he Court is interested in full disclosure and understanding by Dr. Kearl of all issues relating to damages in this action.
Dr. Kearl is subject to being deposed by the parties prior to the hearing on damages so they can develop their own arguments in support of their separate damage theories to distinguish (and offer support for them) to the extent Dr. Kearl takes a contrary position. At trial he will be treated as an adverse expert witness by both parties. As we noted in the earlier article about Dr. Kearl's appointment, he is imminently qualified to undertake this task.
Listed below are two preliminary versions of the order (393 [PDF] and 407 [PDF]), a clarification of the order (394 [PDF]), and the final order (413 [PDF]).
******************
Documents
393
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
_________________
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
___________________
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE RULE 706
EXPERTS
Judge: Hon. William H. Alsup
Date Comp. Filed: October 27, 2010
Trial Date: October 31, 2011
By an order dated August 30, 2001 this Court appointed Dr. James R.
Kearl, pursuant to Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, to serve
as an independent expert to the Court on the subject of damages claimed
by the parties in this action. Mr. John L. Cooper of Farella, Braun +
Martel LLP was appointed to serve as counsel to Dr. Kearl on a pro bono
basis. The purpose of Dr. Kearl’s appointment is provide an independent
professional analysis and view to assist the Court and the jury, in the
event liability is found, in evaluating and assessing damages pursuant
to the claims asserted in this action. Dr. Kearl is to use his
professional judgment to determine the magnitude of work required to
meet the purpose of this appointment. Dr. Kearl’s assignment shall
include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Review of all materials necessary in order for Dr. Kearl to be
personally and thoroughly informed as to all aspects of damage claims of
the parties in this action. Dr. Kearl may use assistants in conducting
his work which assistants shall be compensated as provided in paragraph
9 of this Order. To the extent they have not already done so, Mr.
Cooper, Dr. Kearl, and any of Dr. Kearl’s staff who will have access to
confidential material of either party will sign the undertaking required
under the Protective Order in this case regarding access to and review
of confidential and highly confidential material. Mr. Cooper will assist
Dr. Kearl in obtaining from counsel for the parties the material Dr.
Kearl seeks to review. The full non privileged record in this matter
shall be available to Dr. Kearl as he requests.
2. The parties have already provided to Mr. Cooper the expert damages
report submitted by Dr. Iain M. Cockburn in May 2011, the parties’
briefing on Google’s Daubert motion regarding that report, and the order
of this court dated July 22, 2011 resolving that motion. The parties
shall immediately produce to Mr. Cooper the following materials to be
conveyed to Dr. Kearl: a) a list of all depositions taken in this
matter, including notices of all Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and the
identity of the responding witnesses; b) a description by category of
all documents produced by each party; c) copies of all substantive
motions filed by the parties; d) copies of all documents filed in
conjunction with any Markman hearings; e) copies of all expert reports
filed in this matter; f) copies of all answers to interrogatories
submitted by the parties; and g) copies of all responses to requests for
admissions submitted by the parties.
1
3. Review each party’s expert reports and all supporting materials
submitted by each party’s damages expert. When the parties serve expert
reports on the other party they shall serve copies of those reports and
all supporting materials on Mr. Cooper to be conveyed to Dr. Kearl. The
parties shall make available to Dr. Kearl through Mr. Cooper the full
record of materials on which their experts relied in preparing their
reports and testimony.
4. Within a reasonable period of time after Dr. Kearl has received all
reports of damages experts to be submitted by the parties, Dr. Kearl
shall prepare and submit his separate expert report which will
independently a) critique the damages expert reports submitted by each
side, b) provide his own independent view of each issue raised or
presented in the damages expert reports of the parties, and c) address
each additional issue he believes should be evaluated in order to
provide the jury with a complete and independent view of damages in this
case. Mr. Cooper will be available to provide whatever assistance Dr.
Kearl needs to obtain information and prepare his report.
5. The parties have the right to conduct discovery of Dr. Kearl to the
same extent provided as to any other expert witness. Dr. Kearl may be
deposed by the parties within a reasonable time following submission of
his report. Mr. Cooper shall participate in such deposition to represent
the interests of Dr. Kearl. Communication between Mr. Cooper and Dr.
Kearl shall be privileged to the extent provided by Rule 26 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Oracle and Google, collectively, shall
have no fewer than 7 hours to question Dr. Kearl, with the precise
amount of time to be determined after the parties have the opportunity
to review the scope of Dr. Kearl’s expert report. Oracle and Google
shall divide the allotted time equally. Mr. Cooper shall also have the
opportunity to question Dr. Kearl at deposition. Following the
completion of the deposition, Mr. Cooper shall submit the transcript of
the deposition to the Court and the Court may direct additional
questions to Dr. Kearl. Following the Court’s questioning, the parties
shall have the opportunity to direct follow up questions to Dr. Kearl
within the scope of any questions asked by the Court.
6. Dr. Kearl shall be permitted to attend the depositions of the
parties’ damages experts in this matter, and Dr. Kearl’s counsel shall
be permitted to question the parties’ damages
2
experts at those depositions. The parties will meet and confer and seek
the Court’s guidance regarding the process, if any, by which Dr. Kearl,
through Mr. Cooper, may submit proposed questions to the Court to be
posed to the parties’ experts at trial.
7. While Dr. Kearl is not to function as a mediator, the Court is
interested in full disclosure and understanding by Dr. Kearl of all
issues relating to damages in this action. In serving that interest, the
parties are directed to agree to a procedure by which Dr. Kearl can
communicate with each of the parties’ expert witnesses in an informal
off-the-record manner to address any ambiguities he may wish to have
thus clarified. Such informal communications shall not be subject to
discovery or admissible in court, and shall be solely between the
experts.
8. Dr. Kearl will testify at trial subject to the provisions of Rule 26
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties will meet and
confer and seek the Court’s guidance regarding how Dr. Kearl’s role at
trial will be described to the jury. Dr. Kearl will be presented in
direct examination at trial by Mr. Cooper. Each party will be permitted
to cross examine Dr. Kearl as though he were an adverse expert witness.
The Court will direct questions to Dr. Kearl as it deems appropriate.
9. Dr. Kearl shall be compensated on a monthly basis. His professional
fees and expenses shall be paid to Mr. Cooper, one half by each party
within in thirty days of receipt of each of his monthly invoices. Dr.
Kearl shall submit his invoices and supporting materials, which shall
include the invoices and supporting material of those persons assisting
him, including the number of hours worked, the work performed, and the
type of expenses incurred, to Mr. Cooper who will forward them to
counsel for the parties for payment in accordance with this order. The
parties may contact Mr. Cooper to seek to negotiate reductions in Dr.
Kearl’s billing as they deem necessary or appropriate.
10. Neither Dr. Kearl nor any of his assistants shall communicate
directly with the parties or with the Court. All communication Dr. Kearl
has with the parties and the Court shall be conducted through Mr.
Cooper. The communication provided in paragraph 7 of this order shall
not be between the parties but shall be professional communication
between the experts which is conducted off-the-record.
3
11. Neither Dr. Kearl nor any of his assistants shall incur any
liability to the parties as a result of their work on this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
_____________________
HON. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
394
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
_________________
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
___________________
No. C 10-03561-WHA
ORDER REGARDING
PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT
ORDER FOR RULE 706 EXPERT
The proposed order regarding the assignment for the Rule 706 expert
(Dkt. No. 393) is acknowledged. The parties are requested to submit a
revised version of the proposed order in accordance with the following
guidance.
First, precise deadlines should be set for the completion of Dr.
Kearl’s expert report and deposition. As stated in the August 30 order
appointing Dr. Kearl, his assignment should be planned such that it can
be completed by early December in preparation for a possible damages
trial at that time. Allowing a nebulous “reasonable period of time” for
completion of those tasks would risk undue delay. The Court may consider
altering the deadlines for Dr. Kearl’s report and deposition in light of
future case developments, but in the meantime a workable schedule must
be established and followed.
Second, Dr. Kearl’s role as a Rule 706 expert will be to inform
the jury on the issue of damages, not to advise the Court.
The assignment order should not make reference to Dr. Kearl assisting
the Court.
Third, counsel are requested to proofread the proposed order
carefully and correct all typographical errors such as missing words.
The revised version of the proposed order should be filed by
SEPTEMBER 8, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 6, 2011.
[signature]
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
407
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
__________________
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
Plaintiff,
v. GOOGLE, INC.
Defendant.
____________________
Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE RULE 706 EXPERTS
Dept.: Courtroom 9, 19th Floor
Judge: Honorable William Alsup
Date Comp. Filed: October 27, 2010
Trial Date: October 31, 2011
_____________________
By an order dated August 30, 2001, this Court appointed Dr. James R.
Kearl, pursuant to Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, to serve
as an independent expert on the issue of damages claimed by plaintiff
Oracle America in this action. Mr. John L. Cooper of Farella, Braun +
Martel LLP was appointed to serve as counsel to Dr. Kearl on a pro bono
basis. The purpose of Dr. Kearl’s appointment is to provide an
independent professional analysis and view to inform the jury, in the
event liability is found, on the issue of damages on the claims asserted
in this action. Dr. Kearl is to use his professional judgment to
determine the magnitude of work required to meet the purpose of this
appointment. Dr. Kearl’s assignment will include, but not be limited to,
and will be subject to the following:
1. Dr. Kearl may review any and all materials necessary for him to be
personally and thoroughly informed as to all aspects of the damages
claims and analyses of the parties in this action. Dr. Kearl may use
assistants in conducting his work, which assistants shall be compensated
as provided in paragraph 9 of this Order. To the extent they have not
already done so, Mr. Cooper, Dr. Kearl, and any of Dr. Kearl’s staff who
will have access to confidential material of either party will sign the
undertaking required under the Protective Order in this case regarding
access to and review of confidential and highly confidential material.
Mr. Cooper will assist Dr. Kearl in obtaining from counsel for the
parties any material Dr. Kearl seeks to review. The full, non-privileged
record in this matter will be available to Dr. Kearl as he requests.
2. The parties have already provided to Mr. Cooper the expert damages
report submitted by Dr. Iain M. Cockburn in May 2011, the parties’
briefing on Google’s Daubert motion regarding that report, the
transcript of the July 21, 2011 hearing on that motion, and the order of
this court dated July 22, 2011 resolving that motion. The parties will
immediately produce to Mr. Cooper the following additional materials to
be conveyed to Dr. Kearl: a) a list of all depositions taken in this
matter, including notices of all Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and the
identity of the responding witnesses; b) a description by category of
all documents produced by each party; c) copies of all substantive
motions filed by the parties; d) copies of all documents filed in
conjunction with any Markman hearings; e) copies of all expert reports
filed in this matter; f) copies of all answers to interrogatories
submitted by the parties; and g) copies of all responses to requests for
admissions submitted by the parties.
1
3. Dr. Kearl may review each party’s expert reports and all supporting
materials submitted by each party’s damages expert or experts. When the
parties serve expert reports on the other party, they will serve copies
of those reports and all supporting materials on Mr. Cooper to be
conveyed to Dr. Kearl. The parties will make available to Dr. Kearl
through Mr. Cooper the full record of materials on which their experts
relied in preparing their reports and testimony.
4. By November 14, 2011, Dr. Kearl will prepare and submit a separate
expert report which will independently a) critique the damages expert
reports submitted by each side, b) provide his assessment of any or all
issues raised or presented in the damages expert reports of the parties,
and c) address each additional issue he believes should be evaluated in
order to provide the jury with a complete and independent view of
damages in this case. Mr. Cooper will be available to provide whatever
assistance Dr. Kearl needs to obtain information and prepare his report.
5. The parties will have the right to conduct discovery of Dr. Kearl to
the same extent as any other expert witness. The parties will complete
Dr. Kearl’s deposition by November 23, 2011, subject to a possible
reasonable extension depending on the date on which the Court schedules
the trial on damages. Mr. Cooper will participate in such deposition to
represent the interests of Dr. Kearl. Communication between Mr. Cooper
and Dr. Kearl will be privileged to the extent provided by Rule 26 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Oracle and Google, collectively,
will have no fewer than 7 hours to question Dr. Kearl, with the precise
amount of time to be determined after the parties have the opportunity
to review the scope of Dr. Kearl’s expert report. Oracle and Google will
divide the allotted time equally. Mr. Cooper will also have the
opportunity to question Dr. Kearl at deposition. Following the
completion of the deposition, Mr. Cooper will submit the transcript of
the deposition to the Court and the Court may direct additional
questions to Dr. Kearl. Following the Court’s questioning, the parties
will have the opportunity to direct follow up questions to Dr. Kearl
within the scope of any questions asked by the Court.
6. Dr. Kearl will be permitted to attend the depositions of the parties’
damages experts in this matter, and Mr. Cooper, as Dr. Kearl’s counsel,
will be permitted to question the parties’ damages experts at those
depositions. The parties will meet and confer and seek the Court’s
guidance regarding
2
the process, if any, by which Dr. Kearl, through Mr. Cooper, may submit
proposed questions to the Court to be posed to the parties’ experts at
trial.
7. While Dr. Kearl is not to function as a mediator, the Court is
interested in full disclosure and understanding by Dr. Kearl of all
issues relating to damages in this action. In serving that interest, the
parties are directed to agree to a procedure by which Dr. Kearl can
communicate with each of the parties’ expert witnesses in an informal
off-the-record manner to address any ambiguities he may wish to have
clarified. Such informal communications will not be subject to discovery
or admissible in court, and shall be solely between the experts.
8. Dr. Kearl will testify at trial subject to the provisions of Rule 26
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties will meet and
confer and seek the Court’s guidance regarding how Dr. Kearl’s role at
trial will be described to the jury. Dr. Kearl will be presented in
direct examination at trial by Mr. Cooper. Each party will be permitted
to cross examine Dr. Kearl as though he were an adverse expert witness.
The Court will direct questions to Dr. Kearl as it deems appropriate.
9. Dr. Kearl will be compensated on a monthly basis. His professional
fees and expenses will be paid to Mr. Cooper, one half by each party
within in thirty days of receipt of each of his monthly invoices. Dr.
Kearl will submit his invoices and supporting materials, which will
include the invoices and supporting material of those persons assisting
him, including the number of hours worked, the work performed, and the
type of expenses incurred, to Mr. Cooper, who will forward them to
counsel for the parties for payment in accordance with this order. The
parties may contact Mr. Cooper to seek to negotiate reductions in Dr.
Kearl’s billing as they deem necessary or appropriate.
10. Neither Dr. Kearl nor any of his assistants will communicate
directly with the parties or with the Court. All communication Dr. Kearl
has with the parties and the Court will be conducted through Mr. Cooper.
The communications discussed in paragraph 7 of this order will not be
between the parties but will be professional communication between the
experts off the record.
3
11. Neither Dr. Kearl nor any of his assistants will incur any liability
to the parties as a result of their work on this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:______________________
HON. WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
/s/ Steven C. Holtzman
Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order NO. 45, Section X.B.
regarding non-filing signatories, Steven C.
Holtzman hereby attests that he has obtained concurrence
from counsel for Google Inc. and Dr. James Kearl in the
filing of this proposed order.
4
413
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
__________________
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
Plaintiff,
v. GOOGLE, INC.
Defendant.
____________________
Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE RULE 706
EXPERTS
Dept.: Courtroom 9 8, 19th Floor
Judge: Honorable William Alsup
Date Comp. Filed: October 27, 2010
Trial Date: October 31, 2011
_____________________
By an order dated August 30, 2001, this Court appointed Dr. James R.
Kearl, pursuant to Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, to serve
as an independent expert on the issue of damages claimed by plaintiff
Oracle America in this action. Mr. John L. Cooper of Farella, Braun +
Martel LLP was appointed to serve as counsel to Dr. Kearl on a pro bono
basis. The purpose of Dr. Kearl’s appointment is to provide an
independent professional analysis and view to inform the jury, in the
event liability is found, on the issue of damages on the claims asserted
in this action. Dr. Kearl is to use his professional judgment to
determine the magnitude of work required to meet the purpose of this
appointment. Dr. Kearl’s assignment will include, but not be limited to,
and will be subject to the following:
1. Dr. Kearl may review any and all materials necessary for him to be
personally and thoroughly informed as to all aspects of the damages
claims and analyses of the parties in this action. Dr. Kearl may use
assistants in conducting his work, which assistants shall be compensated
as provided in paragraph 9 of this Order. To the extent they have not
already done so, Mr. Cooper, Dr. Kearl, and any of Dr. Kearl’s staff who
will have access to confidential material of either party will sign the
undertaking required under the Protective Order in this case regarding
access to and review of confidential and highly confidential material.
Mr. Cooper will assist Dr. Kearl in obtaining from counsel for the
parties any material Dr. Kearl seeks to review. The full, non-privileged
record in this matter will be available to Dr. Kearl as he requests.
2. The parties have already provided to Mr. Cooper the expert damages
report submitted by Dr. Iain M. Cockburn in May 2011, the parties’
briefing on Google’s Daubert motion regarding that report, the
transcript of the July 21, 2011 hearing on that motion, and the order of
this court dated July 22, 2011 resolving that motion. The parties will
immediately produce to Mr. Cooper the following additional materials to
be conveyed to Dr. Kearl: a) a list of all depositions taken in this
matter, including notices of all Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and the
identity of the responding witnesses; b) a description by category of
all documents produced by each party; c) copies of all substantive
motions filed by the parties; d) copies of all documents filed in
conjunction with any Markman hearings; e) copies of all expert reports
filed in this matter; f) copies of all answers to interrogatories
submitted by the parties; and g) copies of all responses to requests for
admissions submitted by the parties.
1
3. Dr. Kearl may review each party’s expert reports and all supporting
materials submitted by each party’s damages expert or experts. When the
parties serve expert reports on the other party, they will serve copies
of those reports and all supporting materials on Mr. Cooper to be
conveyed to Dr. Kearl. The parties will make available to Dr. Kearl
through Mr. Cooper the full record of materials on which their experts
relied in preparing their reports and testimony.
4. By November 14, 2011, Dr. Kearl will prepare and submit a separate
expert report which will independently a) critique the damages expert
reports submitted by each side, b) provide his assessment of any or all
issues raised or presented in the damages expert reports of the parties,
and c) address each additional issue he believes should be evaluated in
order to provide the jury with a complete and independent view of
damages in this case. Mr. Cooper will be available to provide whatever
assistance Dr. Kearl needs to obtain information and prepare his report.
5. The parties will have the right to conduct discovery of Dr. Kearl to
the same extent as any other expert witness. The parties will complete
Dr. Kearl’s deposition by November 23, 2011, subject to a possible
reasonable extension depending on the date on which the Court schedules
the trial on damages. Mr. Cooper will participate in such deposition to
represent the interests of Dr. Kearl. Communication between Mr. Cooper
and Dr. Kearl will be privileged to the extent provided by Rule 26 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Oracle and Google, collectively,
will have no fewer than 7 hours to question Dr. Kearl, with the precise
amount of time to be determined after the parties have the opportunity
to review the scope of Dr. Kearl’s expert report. Oracle and Google will
divide the allotted time equally. Mr. Cooper will also have the
opportunity to question Dr. Kearl at deposition. Following the
completion of the deposition, Mr. Cooper will submit the transcript of
the deposition to the Court and the Court may direct additional
questions to Dr. Kearl. Following the Court’s questioning, the parties
will have the opportunity to direct follow up questions to Dr. Kearl
within the scope of any questions asked by the Court.
6. Dr. Kearl will be permitted to attend the depositions of the parties’
damages experts in this matter, and Mr. Cooper, as Dr. Kearl’s counsel,
will be permitted to question the parties’ damages experts at those
depositions. The parties will meet and confer and seek the Court’s
guidance regarding
2
the process, if any, by which Dr. Kearl, through Mr. Cooper, may submit
proposed questions to the Court to be posed to the parties’ experts at
trial.
7. While Dr. Kearl is not to function as a mediator, the Court is
interested in full disclosure and understanding by Dr. Kearl of all
issues relating to damages in this action. In serving that interest, the
parties are directed to agree to a procedure by which Dr. Kearl can
communicate with each of the parties’ expert witnesses in an informal
off-the-record manner to address any ambiguities he may wish to have
clarified. Such informal communications will not be subject to discovery
or admissible in court, and shall be solely between the experts.
8. Dr. Kearl will testify at trial subject to the provisions of Rule 26
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties will meet and
confer and seek the Court’s guidance regarding how Dr. Kearl’s role at
trial will be described to the jury. Dr. Kearl will be presented in
direct examination at trial by Mr. Cooper. Each party will be permitted
to cross examine Dr. Kearl as though he were an adverse expert witness.
The Court will direct questions to Dr. Kearl as it deems appropriate.
9. Dr. Kearl will be compensated on a monthly basis. His professional
fees and expenses will be paid to Mr. Cooper, one half by each party
within in thirty days of receipt of each of his monthly
invoices. Dr.
Kearl will submit his invoices and supporting materials, which will
include the invoices and supporting material of those persons assisting
him, including the number of hours worked, the work performed, and the
type of expenses incurred, to Mr. Cooper, who will forward them to
counsel for the parties for payment in accordance with this order. The
parties may contact Mr. Cooper to seek to negotiate reductions in Dr.
Kearl’s billing as they deem necessary or appropriate.
10. Neither Dr. Kearl nor any of his assistants will communicate
directly with the parties or with the Court. All communication Dr. Kearl
has with the parties and the Court will be conducted through Mr. Cooper.
The communications discussed in paragraph 7 of this order will not be
between the parties but will be professional communication between the
experts off the record.
3
11. Neither Dr. Kearl nor any of his assistants will incur any liability
to the parties as a result of their work on this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:September 9, 2011.
[signature]
HON. WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
/s/ Steven C. Holtzman
Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order NO. 45, Section X.B.
regarding non-filing signatories, Steven C.
Holtzman hereby attests that he has obtained concurrence
from counsel for Google Inc. and Dr. James Kearl in the
filing of this proposed order.
4
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, September 14 2011 @ 09:22 AM EDT |
If any are needed [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, September 14 2011 @ 09:25 AM EDT |
Off topic comments here please.
Posters of on-topic comments will have to explain why the software is math
argument means everything in the world is mathematics without exploding in
bursts of laughing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, September 14 2011 @ 09:26 AM EDT |
Please mention the title of the new in the title of your comment so we know what
you are discussing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, September 14 2011 @ 09:28 AM EDT |
This project is still going on. Thanks to all the volunteers. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, September 14 2011 @ 10:56 AM EDT |
I noticed that Mr. John L. Cooper is apportioned counsel for the Expert on a pro
bono basis.
That seems a little odd to me. What are Mr. Coopers duties other than shuffling
paper between the Expert and the parties?
Why would he do it pro bono?
Does that make him the only guy in this case not getting paid for his
participation?
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, September 14 2011 @ 11:31 AM EDT |
I note a few points. First, Judge Alsup forced the issue of a Rule 706 expert
fairly early. He had already told the parties that Oracle's 'beelions' was
nonsense and Google's 'nothing' was equally silly. He said that Google's
advertising revenue was relevant to damages. He also said, start at the
potential licence fees that might have come out of the licence discussions
between the parties.
The magistrate judge said that Oracle's disclosure demands to establish 'mobile'
revenue went dramatically beyond the disclosure involved in expert witnesses
surmising what licence fees would have come out of what-if considerations of
licence negotiations. At least, that was the case when comparing their demands
with previous cases where that approach was taken. She also limited the
disclosure to the financial reports available to the top two layers of Google
management on a regular report basis since this would have been the information
available during actual negotiations.
It seems to me that, in spite of Judge Alsup's slapping down of the parties over
expert reports on damages, he does not see an obvious link between the copyright
and patent alleged violations and advertising revenue.
He has forced the parties to come up with a powerhouse of a damages expert to
resolve the issue and explain the true arguments for the level of damages to the
jury.
It seems like an excellent plan and a fine choice of expert. As long as the
expert agrees with me, of course!
---
Regards
Ian Al
I_An Algorithm is free speech.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, September 14 2011 @ 01:07 PM EDT |
hmmm
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|