16-08-25 Google Attorney Declaration

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

ROBERT A. VAN NEST - # 84065
rvannest@kvn.com
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON - # 184325
canderson@kvn.com
DANIEL PURCELL - # 191424
dpurcell@kvn.com
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone:
(415) 391-5400
Facsimile:
(415) 397-7188
KING & SPALDING LLP
BRUCE W. BABER (pro hac vice)
bbaber@kslaw.com
1180 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone:
(404) 572-4826
10
11
Attorneys for Defendant

GOOGLE INC.
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
15
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
16
Plaintiffs,
17
v.
18
GOOGLE INC.,
19
Defendant.
Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA

DECLARATION OF CHRISTA M.
ANDERSON IN RESPONSE TO AUGUST
18, 2016 ORDER (ECF 2036)
Hearing:
Time:
Dept.
Judge:
August 17, 2016

8:00 a.m.
Courtroom 8, 19th Fl.
Hon. William Alsup
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF CHRISTA M. ANDERSON
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-03561-WHA
1101363
I, Christa M. Anderson, declare as follows:
1.
I am a partner in the law firm of Keker & Van Nest LLP, counsel to Google Inc.
(Google) in the present case. Unless otherwise stated, I have personal knowledge of the facts
set forth herein, and if called to testify as a witness thereto could do so competently under oath.
2.
I submit this declaration in response to the Courts Order re Follow-up from
Hearing on August 17, 2016 (ECF 2036), requiring submission of a sworn statement explaining
why the discovery responses referenced in Court yesterday were not updated, including the full
extent to which counsel knew Googles intention to launch a full version of Marshmallow,
including the Google Play Store, for Chrome OS. I set forth below in paragraphs three and four
10
an overview that addresses the Courts inquiry, and provide further details, including citations to
11
documents produced to Oracle during the discovery period and testimony provided by Google
12
witnesses during the discovery period, in paragraphs five through forty-seven.
13
I.
14
OVERVIEW
3.
At the August 17 hearing, the gravamen of Oracles argument was that Google
15
should have supplemented its discovery responses to inform Oracle of its plans to enable Android
16
applications (which are available on the Google Play Store) to run on laptops or desktops that use
17
Googles Chrome OS as their operating system. See, e.g. ECF 2037 38:8-9 (They didnt
18
disclose it, despite diligent discovery requests.). In response to Oracles motion and the Courts
19
inquiry, I have reviewed relevant information made available to Oracle during the discovery
20
period, including Googles discovery responses, the parties meet-and-confer correspondence,
21
documents produced by Google, and deposition transcripts of Google witnesses, which (among
22
other things) disclosed to Oracle Googles ongoing efforts and plans to build software allowing
23
Android applications, (which are available on the Google Play Store) to run on desktops and
24
laptops that use Chrome OS.
25
4.
Based on the information I reviewed, I have confirmed and believe that the Google
26
discovery responses at issue were proper and did not require further supplementation for the
27
reasons I will now discuss. In the paragraphs below, I summarize documents, deposition
28
testimony, and other information relevant to the Courts inquiry.

1
1101363
1
2
II.
BACKGROUND
5.
In order to understand the bases for my belief that Googles discovery responses
did not require supplementation, I have set out the below information about the status of the ARC
project, the latest version of ARC (known as ARC++ internally at Google), and the information
made available to Oracle during discovery concerning the ARC project, ARC++, and Googles
plans to make Android applications available through use of those products on desktops and
laptops that use Chrome OS. This information is set forth below, and the relevant documents are
attached hereto.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
A. Information made available to Oracle during discovery about Googles plans to

make Android applications available on Chrome OS devices.
6.
During the discovery period in this case, there was significant information
available to Oracle about Googles intentions, plans and efforts to make Android applications
available on devices running the Chrome operating system (such as Chromebook laptops). For
example, as reflected in ECF 1999-16, Google publicly announced an earlier iteration of the App
Runtime for Chrome (ARC) project at the annual Google I/O developer conference in June
2014. In that announcement, Googles then-head of Chrome explained that Google had been
working on a project to connect your phone and your Chromebook. Id., Ex. OO-1 at 84. He
noted that this is a difficult challenge technically, so weve been working on this project for a
18
while. Our goal is to bring your favorite Android applications in a thoughtful manner to
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Chromebooks. Id. (emphasis added). He further explained that [w]e want this to be intuitive
for users. These applications were built for Android for the phone, so we want them to work
when there is a mouse, keyboard and touch events, et cetera. For developers, we want this to
work with as little modifications as possible. Id.. He also noted that Google was very, very
excited about bringing important, favorite Android applications [to users] for uses straight on
their Chromebooks, so that they can get an even more connected experience. And we are
working on bringing our experiences across both Android and Chrome together, so that it looks in
a delightful way for our users. Id. at 86 (emphasis added). Oracle was aware of this
28
2
1101363
announcement during the discovery period, as it cited press articles describing the announcement
in its damages experts report. See ECF 1560-12 (Malackowski Opening Report) 172 n.351.
7.
Google then publicly announced the first Android apps available to be run on
Chrome OS using the ARC technology in a September 2014 blogpost on the Google Chrome blog
(https://chrome.googleblog.com/2014/09/first-set-of-android-apps-coming-to.html). A true and
correct copy of that blogpost is attached as Exhibit 1. The title of the blogpost was First set of
Android apps coming to a Chromebook near you. The blogpost stated that Today, were
making Chromebooks even more mobile by bringing the first set of Android apps to Chrome
OS. The blogpost further stated: These first apps are the result of a project called the App
10
Runtime for Chrome (Beta), which we announced earlier this summer at Google I/O. Over the
11
coming months, well be working with a select group of Android developers to add more of
12
your favorite apps so youll have a more seamless experience across your Android phone and
13
Chromebook. Id. (Emphasis added). Oracle was aware of this blogpost as it cited it in the expert
14
report of its technical expert Robert Zeidman (Zeidman Report). ECF No. 2012-2 at 129
15
n.10.
16
8.
Google provided instructions and documentation on the public Chrome developer
17
website explaining how developers could use ARC to enable Android apps to run on Chrome OS.
18
(https://developer.chrome.com/apps/getstarted_arc). A true and correct copy of a webpage
19
providing such instructions and documentation is attached as Exhibit 2. The webpage is titled
20
Getting Started with ARC and explains: The App Runtime for Chrome (Beta), or ARC, lets
21
you run your favorite Android apps on Chrome OS. Id. (emphasis added). Oracle was aware
22
of this webpage too as it was also cited in the expert report of Mr. Zeidman. ECF No. 2012-2
23
(Zeidman Rep.) at 126 n.7.
24
9.
Moreover, internal Google documents produced to Oracle during the discovery
25
period in this case provided further details on Googles work to make Android applications
26
available to run on devices running Chrome. For example, a document Bates-labeled GOOG-
27
00148195, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 3, is titled ARC Design Doc.
28
It was produced to Oracle during discovery on December 2, 2015. This document is dated
3
1101363
fully-tested Stable channel that an end user will encounter by default. See Exhibit 16
(https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/1086915). In order to receive the developer
channel version of Chrome OS, an end user must affirmatively select the option to switch to the
developer channel after clicking on Settings > About Chrome OS. Id. In addition, I am
informed and believe that Google continued to make changes to ARC++ code after Google I/O.
Accordingly, on information and belief, I understand that the code for ARC++ was not ready for
external release until on or around June 15, 2016, when Google released the experimental
developer channel version of ARC++ to the public. See Exhibit 17
(http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2016-06-15T17:16:00-07:00)
10
(noting that [t]he dev channel has been updated to 53.0.2767.3, which corresponds with the
11
reference to the M53 release in Googles May 19 announcement). I further understand, on
12
information and belief, that the ARC++ technology still is not complete, or stable, and that
13
Google will not make it available in a stable release of Chrome OS for certain Chromebooks until
14
later this year.
15
16
E. Googles Outside Counsels knowledge of ARC and ARC++

23.
The Court instructed me to address the full extent to which counsel knew
17
Googles intention to launch a full version of Marshmallow, including the Google Play Store, for
18
Chrome OS. ECF 2036. I wish to note, upon information and belief, that the ARC++
19
functionality which is the subject of Oracles Motion for a New Trial did not contain a full
20
version of Marshmallow for Chrome OS. I understand and believe that the runtime for (the
21
Marshmallow version of) Android that can be run inside of Chrome OS does not include the
22
Linux Kernel at the bottom of the Android stack, and does not include the Application
23
Framework layer at the top of the stack. I also wish to note, upon information and belief, that the
24
Google Play Store is not part of (the Marshmallow version of) Android, but is rather a separate
25
application that is available for Android. Subject to these caveats, I address below the Courts
26
questions.
27
24.
28
Googles outside counsel in this matter was aware of the original version of the
ARC project at least as early as August 2015, when Oracles counsel inquired about a related
9
1101363
made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)
(emphasis added); see also 8A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc.
2049.1 (3d ed.) (On its face, the rule only requires further disclosure if the original response was
incomplete or incorrect in some material respect, emphasizing the need to verify that the
information was in fact requested and to guard against undue precision in scrutinizing further
disclosures.). I further understand that there is no need as a matter of form to submit a
supplemental disclosure to include information already revealed by a witness in a deposition or
otherwise through formal discovery. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civ.
2049.1 (3d ed.); accord Gomez v. Am. Empress Ltd. P'ship, 189 F.3d 473, at *1 (9th Cir. 1999)
10
(Supplementation of discovery responses to tell the plaintiff what the witnesses said in their
11
depositions was obviously unnecessary, because plaintiffs counsel was present at the
12
depositions.).
13
29.
My understanding of the duty to supplement is consistent with the parties conduct
14
in this litigation. For example, both Google and Oracle served their most recent supplemental
15
responses to written discovery requests in December 2015. Google served supplemental
16
responses to Oracles Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh set of Interrogatories to Google on December 16,
17
2015, the last day of fact discovery. Oracle likewise served supplemental responses to Googles
18
Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth set of Interrogatories to Oracle on December 16, 2015. In addition,
19
following a meet and confer between the parties on Googles RFAs to Oracle after the close of
20
fact discovery, Oracle served a supplement response to Googles Second set of Requests for
21
Admission to Oracle on December 22, 2015. The parties did not exchange any further written
22
supplemental responses to discovery after that point. However, the parties continued to produce
23
certain supplemental documents leading up through trial.
24
A.
Requests for Production of Documents (RFPs)
25
30.
While Oracle did not identify any specific RFPs at the August 17, 2016 hearing,
26
Oracle argued in its Motion for a New Trial that Google had failed to supplement its response to
27
RFP No. 324, which requested:
28
11
1101363
Source code and DOCUMENTATION for all GOOGLE software

that can be used to facilitate use of ANDROID (including software
derived from ANDROID such as Brillo) on devices other than
mobile phones, including by way of example and not limitation
source code and documentation for Weave and source code and
documentation for software related to porting ANDROID to
desktop or laptop computers.
2
3
4
5
ECF No. 1998-19, Ex. Q at 4. On December 4, 2016, Google served objections to this RFP
(which Oracle did not attach to its motion), noting that it was vague and ambiguous as to the
phrase related to porting. Google also request[ed] a meet and confer with Oracle to obtain an
explanation of the nature of materials sought by Oracle in this Request. Id. A true and correct
copy of Googles objections is attached as Exhibit 17A.
10
31.
On December 14, 2015, the parties held a telephonic meet and confer. Counsel for
11
Google summarized the call in a follow-up letter to Oracle the next day, in which Googles
12
counsel stated: you also asked about a purported project to port Android to desktop. It is
13
unclear to what you are referring. Exhibit 18. Counsel closed the email by noting, Please let
14
me know if you have any further questions. Id. Our office has been unable to locate any follow-
15
up correspondence from Oracle on this issue.
16
32.
At the time Google answered RFP No. 324, it had already produced the source
17
code for ARC and ARC Welder, and the then-incomplete source code for ARC++ was not
18
responsive to the request because it called for software that can be used to facilitate use of
19
Android on devices other than mobile phones. As discussed above, at the time Google
20
responded to this RFP, ARC++ was months away from completion so could not yet be used to
21
facilitate use of Android on devices other than mobile phones. Furthermore, as explained
22
above, Google produced documents during the discovery period that described ARC++, and thus
23
documents regarding ARC++ were available to Oracle. Supra, 15-19.
24
33.
Notably, on February 5, 2016, after the close of fact discovery and months before
25
the completion of ARC++, the Court ordered that: The upcoming trial will proceed as if we were
26
back in the original trial, but now with the instructions on fair use handed down by the court of
27
appeals. No new copyrighted works will be allowed. ECF 1479 at 1. The Court further ruled:
28
Among possibly others, our trial will not include implementations of Android in Android TV,
12
1101363
Android Auto, Android Wear, or Brillo. Id. at 2 (emphasis in original). And in a later order, the
Court excluded all evidence or expert testimony relating to Android Wear, Android Auto,
Android TV, Brillo, or any other new implementation of Android in devices other than phones or
tablets. ECF 1781 (Mem. Op. Re Googles Motion in Limine No. 2 Regarding New Products) at
5 (emphasis added). The Courts orders on this issue are discussed in more detail in Googles
Opposition to Oracles Motion for a New Trial, ECF No. 2012 at 7-8.
34.
It is my belief that Google violated no duty to supplement document production in
the period leading up through trial in May 2016 because ARC++ still was not complete at that
time, trial was well under way, and the Court had already excluded evidence of uses of Android
10
other than in phones and tablets. Furthermore, even if un-finished source code were otherwise
11
responsive to RFP No. 324, Google made clear to Oracle during discovery that it would not
12
produce source code for unfinished products. For example:
13
i)
On November 9, 2015, counsel for Google informed Oracle that RFPs
14
relating to future products were overbroad and irrelevant. Counsel further stated: Google
15
continues to disagree that the production of documents relating to Googles future products is
16
likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. However, in the spirit of
17
compromise and in an attempt to avoid unnecessary motion practice, subject to its already stated
18
objections, Google will collect and produce relevant executive presentations and product plans
19
that reflect Googles plans with respect to future mobile products. A true and correct copy of
20
counsels November 9, 2015 email to Oracle is attached as Exhibit 19.
21
ii)
On December 9, 2015, counsel for Google informed Oracle on a tape-
22
recorded meet-and-confer telephone call that if a document is solely related to, you know,
23
something thats being planned out in the future that hasnt been released yet, um, were not as far
24
as I know collecting and producing those non-custodial documents on that level. A true and
25
correct copy of an unofficial transcription by our office of an audio recording of that meet-and-
26
confer call is attached as Exhibit 20.
27
28
iii)
On December 15, 2015, counsel for Google again informed Oracle that as
I stated on our call, Googles position on what it would produce as to future products has been
13
1101363
clear since at least November 9, 2015, when I stated that, in spite of Googles relevance
objections and in the spirit of compromise, Google would collect and produce relevant executive
presentations and product plans that reflect Googles plans with respect to future mobile
products. Googles position has not changed, nor did [Oracles counsel] respond to my email of
November 9, 2015 or ever otherwise question Googles agreement to produce. A true and
correct copy of counsels December 15, 2015 email to Oracle is attached as Exhibit 18.
7
8
9
A. Interrogatories
35.
Oracle identified three interrogatories at the August 17, 2016 hearing. ECF 2037
at 35:17-20 (We asked interrogatories about it. And interrogatories 26, 27, and 29 all covered
10
this subject matter.). Oracle propounded these interrogatories on August 21, 2015. Google
11
served objections on September 4, and served its final supplemental responses on December 16.
12
Googles supplemental responses are attached as Exhibit P to Oracles New Trial Motion.
13
36.
14
Oracles Interrogatory No. 26, asked:

For each VERSION of ANDROID developed or released by
GOOGLE since October 27, 2010, identify all ANDROID code that
contains or replicates code from the 37 JAVA API PACKAGES,
including any DECLARING CODE or any other code contained in
the JAVA PLATFORM.
15
16
17
ECF 1995-12, Ex. P at 5. Google objected that the phrase developed or released by Google
18
was vague and ambiguous, though it responded to the interrogatory subject to those (and other)
19
objections. Id. Relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Google identified previously produced
20
documents and code repositories from which the information sought by Oracle could be derived.
21
Id. In particular, Google identified the publicly available source code for the Android Open
22
Source Project, a hard drive containing all publicly released versions of Android, and a source
23
code computer containing the source code for ARC and ARC Welder, which Google had
24
previously made available to Oracle for inspection. Id.
25
26
27
28
37.

For any software developed or released by GOOGLE since October
27, 2010, identify all code from such software that contains or
replicates code from the 37 JAVA API PACKAGES.
ECF 1995-12, Ex. P at 6-7. Google objected that the phrase developed or released by Google
14
1101363
was vague and ambiguous, though it responded to the interrogatory subject to those (and other)
objections. Id. Relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Google identified previously produced
documents and code repositories from which the information sought by Oracle could be derived,
and incorporated in full its response to Interrogatory No. 26.
38.

For any software based on or derived from ANDROID since
October 27, 2010, identify all code from such software that contains
or replicates the SSO of the 37 JAVA API PACKAGES.
7
8
ECF 1995-12, Ex. P at 9. Google objected that the phrase any software based on or derived
from Android was vague and ambiguous, though it responded to the interrogatory subject to
10
those (and other) objections. Id. Relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Google identified previously
11
produced documents and code repositories from which the information sought by Oracle could be
12
derived, and incorporated in full its response to Interrogatory No. 26.
13
39.
I do not believe that Google had a duty to identify un-finished source code for
14
ARC++ in its responses to Oracle Interrogatory Nos. 26, 27 & 29 because, at the time of those
15
responses, the ARC++ source code was not yet developed but instead was months away from
16
completion and Google had consistently objected to producing source code for potential future,
17
unreleased products. Furthermore, Google already had produced documents describing ARC++
18
to Oracle during the discovery period.
19
40.
I do not believe that Google had a duty to supplement these interrogatory
20
responses in May 2016 because, by that time, the source code for ARC++ still was not complete,
21
and, in any event, the trial was well under way and the Court had already (months earlier)
22
excluded uses of Android other than phones and tablets. Furthermore, as explained above,
23
Google had already produced documents describing the ARC++ project, including design and
24
architecture documents, as well as documents that described Googles plans to enable Chrome OS
25
users to access the Play Store with the entire suit of Android apps. Supra Exs. 6-14. And Oracle
26
had already elicited deposition testimony regarding Googles ongoing plans to enable access to
27
Android apps on Chrome OS. Exs. 4 & 5.
28
B. Request for Admission (RFA)

15
1101363
1
2
IV.
STATEMENTS MADE BY ORACLES COUNSEL AT THE AUGUST HEARING

44.
On August 17, 2016, the Court held a hearing on Oracles Rule 59 Motion for a
New Trial (ECF No. 1997), which I attended. I describe below some of the statements made by
Oracles counsel at that hearing characterizing Googles discovery responses, and provide
additional context for the Courts consideration of those statements.
45.
Oracles counsel stated that In deposition, they described it [ARC] as a failure.
ECF No. 2037 at 40:22; see also 65:5-8. Our office has searched for this testimony in the
transcripts of the depositions taken in this case and have been unable to find any instance where a
Google witness testified that ARC was a failure. Google 30(b)(6) witness Felix Lin testified
10
that, while Google had not gotten the traction or degree of success it would like, it had some
11
successes with ARC. Ex. 4 (Lin Dec. 14, 2016 Dep. Tr.) at 21:18-19. An excerpt of Mr. Lins
12
testimony on this issue is attached as Exhibits 4 & 5. ARC has been available since September
13
2014, and remains available today. See Ex. 2 (https://developer.chrome.com/apps/getstarted arc).
14
46.
Oracles counsel stated that But this thing they announced in May is not ARC
15
Welder. It makes clear, if you look at the transcript of their announcement which is Exhibit J1
16
to our Rule 59 motion this is not ARC Welder. They say ARC failed. It had challenges. It
17
didnt work. So were building a whole new platform. ECF No. 2037 at 40:1-6. However, I
18
have reviewed Exhibit J1 to Oracles Motion for a New Trialwhich is not Googles
19
announcement of ARC++ but, rather is, a transcript of a presentation at Google I/O entitled
20
Bring Your Android App to Chrome OSand the presenter did not say that ARC failed or
21
that it didnt work. See ECF 1998-10. He said that ARC had some challenges for
22
developers, and that some apps didnt work great with this. He also went on to say, Having
23
said all that, we still believe that getting Android applications running as a fully integrated native
24
Chrome OS apps [sic] was the right idea, so we made a lot of improvements and were building a
25
whole new platform to run Android apps on Chromebooks. Id. at 3-4.
26
47.
Oracles counsel stated: If we had had the source code and come before the Court
27
when the Court was considering the new-products issues, we would have been able to say to the
28
Court, Your Honor, theyre going to the core market for Java SE: laptops and desktops. ECF
18
1101363
No. 2037at 37-7:11. However, Oracle was well aware of this argument, and indeed made the
argument in the Expert Report of James Malackowski, stating: ARC allows Google to bring
Android Apps to the Chrome operating system. This means Google is now using Android to
occupy the original, traditional market of the Java Platform. (Emphasis added). ECF 1560-12
(Malackowski Opening Rep.) 172 . In addition, as noted earlier, Oracle had received during
discovery documents describing the fact that Google was in the process of designing ARC++ to
allow Android application to run on Chrome OS. Ex. 7 [GOOG-00203783] at *785 (goal of
ARC++ to [p]rovide Chrome OS users with Play Android apps on Chrome OS without
developer action) (emphasis added).
10
11
12
13
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Executed this 25 day of August, 2016 at San Francisco, California.
14
15
16
By:
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
1101363
Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 9
EXHIBIT 1
Google Chrome Blog: First set of Android apps coming to a Chromebook near you
Duolingo
Evernote
Sight Words
Vine
https://chrome.googleblog.com/2014/09/first-set-of-android-apps-coming-to.html
8/24/2016
announced earlier this summer at Google I/O
tell us which of your favorite Android apps
493 comments
8/24/2016
8/24/2016
8/24/2016
8/24/2016
8/24/2016
8/24/2016
Google Privacy Terms
8/24/2016
EXHIBIT 2
Getting Started with ARC - Google Chrome

DEVTOOLS
MULTI-DEVICE
PLATFORM
Apps
Learn Basics
Learn with Codelab
Run Chrome Apps on Mobile
Run Android Apps on Chrome OS
Getting Started With ARC
Enable Play Services in Your ARC App
In-app Purchases for ARC Apps
Samples
Develop in the Cloud
User Low-Level System Services
MVC Architecture & Frameworks
Distribute Apps
Chrome Platform APIs
Help
Extensions
Native Client
Store
Getting Started with ARC

The App Runtime for Chrome (Beta), or ARC, lets you run your favorite Android apps on Chrome OS.
By following these steps, you can try out the App Runtime for Chrome (Beta) during this
Developer Preview.
https://developer.chrome.com/apps/getstarted_arc
8/24/2016

To test your app, you need three things:
1. Your APK.
2. PC, Mac, Linux, or Chromebook on Chrome Version 41+.
Note: ARC is no longer supported on 32-bit x86 platforms and those platforms will no longer
receive updates after October 13, 2015. All ARM platforms will continue to work and receive
updates.
3. The ARC Welder app.
Test your app

Open ARC Welder, attach your APK, and select your options. Click Launch App to test your app.
Upload your app

In ARC Welder, click Download ZIP. Upload your ZIP file to the Chrome Web Store. See Publishing
Your App for more details.
Best practices
When testing your APK on ARC, developers have passed along these helpful tips:
Use Tablet or Maximized for your form factor and Landscape for your orientation.
Be sure your app works well for touch and non-touch Chromebooks.
If you need to check if your app is running on Chrome OS, look for chromium as the
android.os.Build.BRAND and android.os.Build.MANUFACTURER.
Getting logs:
On a PC, you can get logs from your app by running plugin.shell('adbd') in the JavaScript
console (chrome://inspect/#apps) and then running either adb logcat or adb
pull /data/data/package_name/path/to/your/log.txt from the Android SDK tools.
On a Chromebook, where adb isn't available right now, run either plugin.shell('logcat')
or plugin.shell('cat /data/data/package_name/path/to/your/log.txt') directly
in the JavaScript console (chrome://inspect/#apps).
8/24/2016

If the app crashes and you can't get logs using logcat, try collecting stdout and stderr from
Chrome/NaCl. On Chrome OS, you can get these logs from chrome://system/ and expanding
ui_log .
Javascript console logs sometimes contain relevant information. There are two contexts, the
background page (chrome://extensions, enable Developer Mode, select app_main.html for
your app), and the app window (chrome://inspect/#apps).
To enable Google Play services, read more.
Since ARC is in Beta, it doesn't support all of Google Play Services yet. However, here are some
available APIs:
Auth (OAuth2)
GCM
Google+ sign-in
Maps
Location
Ads
To ensure compatibility with all users, package and test your app on the Chromebook Stable
channel.
To use in-app payments, read more.
Content available under the CC-By 3.0 license
Google
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Report
14M
Add us on
a content bug
8/24/2016
Exhibit 3
(Document Sought to be Sealed)
Exhibit 4

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
3
4

Plaintiff,
6
7
) Case No.
vs.
) CV 10-03561 WHA
GOOGLE, INC.,
8
9
)
Defendant.
__________________________________) VOLUME I
10
11
12
VIDEOTAPED 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF GOOGLE, INC.
13
DESIGNEE:
14
FELIX LIN
Palo Alto, California
15
Monday, December 14, 2015
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Reported by:
23
KELLI COMBS, CSR No. 7705
24
Job No.
25
Pages 1 - 184
2196295
Page 1
Veritext Legal Solutions
866 299-5127

1
If you'll wait just one moment, I'll put
an objection in.
BY MS. HURST:
And would you correct my pronunciation of
any names if they're wrong today?
offend anyone by getting the names wrong.
I don't want to
Sure.
Thank you.
10
Yes.
And during what period of time did you
11
understand Mr. Pichai to be responsible for
12
Chrome OS?
13
MR. RAGLAND:
Objection to form.
14
THE WITNESS:
Pretty much from the
15
beginning.
16
BY MS. HURST:
18
Now, in 2009, Google had already created
and announced Android; is that correct?

A
Yes.
20
And Android is an operate -- or includes
MR. RAGLAND:
Objection; form.
23
THE WITNESS:
Yes.
25
10:07:39AM
an operating system, true?
22
24
10:07:17AM
10:07:27AM
19
21
10:07:07AM
Is that -- is that all right with you?
17
10:07:00AM
BY MS. HURST:
Q
10:07:47AM
Page 13

866 299-5127

1
19
20
21
MR. RAGLAND:
Objection; outside the scope
and form.
10:09:59AM
I'll also take this opportunity to
22
designate the transcript as Highly Confidential,
23
Attorneys' Eyes Only subject to review, as we've
24
been doing in other depositions.
25
THE WITNESS:
What was the question again?
10:10:09AM
Page 15

866 299-5127

1
Page 16

866 299-5127

1
2
3
10:13:14AM
BY MS. HURST:
Q
But you have been able to create a
solution that will allow Android applications to run
on Chrome OS, true?
6
7
MR. RAGLAND:
10
Objection to form and
outside the scope.
8
9
10:13:22AM
THE WITNESS:
We've managed to get some
Android applications running on Chrome OS.

BY MS. HURST:
10:13:35AM
11
12
ARC Welder?
13
Yes.
14
What is ARC Welder?
15
16
And the -- are you familiar with
MR. RAGLAND:
Objection; outside the
THE WITNESS:
ARC Welder is a tool that
scope.
17
18
allows application developers to try to get their
19
applications running on Chrome OS.
20
BY MS. HURST:
21
10:13:43AM
10:13:52AM
And why did you create ARC Welder?
22
MR. RAGLAND:
Same objection.
23
THE WITNESS:
We wanted to make it
24
possible for application developers who were
25
familiar and had built Android applications to make
10:14:02AM
Page 19

866 299-5127

1
encourage developers to write for the form factor,
so they don't necessarily offer the best solution by
simply taking a device -- an application written for
a phone and running it on a -- on a larger display.
BY MS. HURST:
10:15:22AM
So then why not simply encourage them to
develop for Chrome OS devices?
ARC Welder at all?
10
11
I mean, why offer
We do.
MR. RAGLAND:
THE WITNESS:
We do.
BY MS. HURST:
14
And have you been successful in getting
15
many developers of Android applications to port them
16
over to Chrome OS?
17
MR. RAGLAND:
Same objections.
18
THE WITNESS:
We've seen some success,
19
yes.
20
BY MS. HURST:
21
Can you approximate how many Android
applications have been ported over to Chrome OS
23
without use of ARC Welder?
25
10:15:36AM
10:15:45AM
22
24
10:15:31AM
outside the scope.
12
13
10:15:09AM
MR. RAGLAND:
outside the scope.
10:15:53AM
Page 21

866 299-5127

1
the scope.
10:24:00AM
THE WITNESS:
I see different strategies
for different companies playing out.
BY MS. HURST:
My question now is:
Thinking forward and
projecting into the future with the goals for
Google, wouldn't you like to have a unified
experience for your customers, that is, end user
customers, across any device that they may choose to
10
use?
10:24:35AM
11
12
MR. RAGLAND:
Objection to form, outside
THE WITNESS:
Google tries to make its
the scope.
13
14
applications available on all platforms, yes.
15
BY MS. HURST:
16
17
18
10:24:44AM
And how does Google make money?

MR. RAGLAND:
scope, form.
19
THE WITNESS:
Today, Google primarily
20
makes money from advertising.
21
BY MS. HURST:
22
23
10:24:20AM
10:24:57AM
And in what forms does Google deliver the
advertising from which it makes that money?
24
MR. RAGLAND:
Same objections.
25
THE WITNESS:
Largely online.
10:25:08AM
Page 29

866 299-5127

1
BY MS. HURST:
1:28:38PM
Did Exhibit 5089, this article, did it
prompt any discussion on your part with anybody else
at Google about the information contained therein?
5
6
MR. RAGLAND:
Objection to form and beyond
THE WITNESS:
Other -- other people on the
the scope.
7
8
team saw it.
was an interesting analysis but, you know, there
10
I think, in general, people thought it
wasn't really any discussion beyond that.
11
MS. HURST:
Journal article dated October 29, 2015, entitled
13
"Alphabet's Google to Fold Chrome Operating System
14
into Android."
15
(Deposition Exhibit 5090 marked
16
for identification.)
Mr. Lin, did you read this article on or
about the time it was published?
20
I did.
21
And what was your reaction to it at the
22
25
1:30:30PM
time?
23
24
1:30:02PM
BY MS. HURST:
18
19
1:29:05PM
Exhibit 5090 is a Wall Street
12
17
1:28:48PM
MR. RAGLAND:
THE WITNESS:
My impression was that
scope.
1:30:44PM
Page 106

866 299-5127

1
somebody who had done some analysis was completely
misreading what was actually going on.
1:30:46PM
24
Page 107

866 299-5127

1
10
BY MS. HURST:
11
1:34:06PM
What was the goal of creating ARC Welder?
12
MR. RAGLAND:
Objection to scope.
13
THE WITNESS:
Are you asking about the
14
technical goal or what -- what do you mean?
15
BY MS. HURST:
16
17
18
1:35:09PM
Well, let's start with the technical goal.

MR. RAGLAND:
Same objection, also to
THE WITNESS:
The technical goal was to
form.
19
20
just make it easier for application developers to
21
put the finishing touches on Android applications so
22
that they could run on Chrome OS.
23
BY MS. HURST:
24
25
1:35:16PM
What were the bus- -What was the business goal or goals of
1:35:26PM
Page 109

866 299-5127

1
17
18
BY MS. HURST:
Q
Is there some version of Android that's
19
API-level version that's been released where ARC
20
does support all of the libraries?
21
MR. RAGLAND:
Same objections.
22
THE WITNESS:
I don't know that we have
23
produced that or that it's been made available, no.
24
BY MS. HURST:
25
Which -- which libraries are not
1:42:19PM
1:42:33PM
Page 115

866 299-5127

1
there.
developers to make their applications at the margin
work.
other.
BY MS. HURST:
It's just a matter of getting application
I just don't know for certain, one way or the
1:43:56PM
And is it your goal and plan to get
application developers to do the work to support
Android on Chrome OS using ARC Welder or otherwise?
9
10
MR. RAGLAND:
Objection to form and beyond
the scope of noticed topics.
11
THE WITNESS:
possible for every Android application to run on
13
Chrome OS without any developer work, that would be
14
phenomenal; just like I think Microsoft would love
15
to have every Android application running on
16
Windows, and I suspect, at least customers who are
17
using iPhones, would love to have all the Android
18
apps that aren't currently running on iPhones
19
available to them on iPhones as well.
20
BY MS. HURST:
Q
1:44:30PM
1:44:53PM
Does ARC support Google Play Services?
22
MR. RAGLAND:
Objection; beyond the scope.
23
THE WITNESS:
I don't know the answer to
24
1:44:11PM
I think if we could make it
12
21
1:43:45PM
that.
25
Page 117

866 299-5127
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 14
EXHIBIT 15
Google Chrome Blog: The Google Play store, coming to a Chromebook near you
https://chrome.googleblog.com/2016/05/the-google-play-store-coming-to.html
8/24/2016
8/24/2016
here
Google Plus
Twitter
25 comments
Add a comment
8/24/2016
8/24/2016
8/24/2016
8/24/2016
8/24/2016
EXHIBIT 16
Stable, beta, and development channels - Chromebook Help

Chromebook Help
CHROMEBOOK
FORUM
CONTACT US
Stable, beta, and development channels

You can test the latest features of the Chrome operating system (OS) by switching channels to a more
experimental version.
Youll need to be the Chromebook owner to switch channels.
To see which channel you're using:
1. Click the status area, where your account picture appears.
2. Click Settings>About Chrome OS.
3. An "About" window will open with your version number and channel.
Before you switch channels

Stable channel: This channel is fully tested by the Chrome OS team, and is the best choice to avoid
crashes and other problems. It's updated roughly every 2-3 weeks for minor changes, and every 6
weeks for major changes.
Beta channel: If you want to see upcoming changes and improvements with low risk, use the Beta
channel. It's updated roughly every week, with major updates coming every 6 weeks, more than a
month before the Stable channel gets them.
Dev channel: If you want to see the latest Chrome OS features, use the Dev channel. The Dev channel
gets updated once or twice weekly. While this build is tested, it might have bugs, as we want people to
see what's new as soon as possible.
Warning: Switching from an experimental channel to a more stable channel will delete everything from
your Chromebook, like downloaded files, photos, owner permissions, and saved networks for all
accounts. Youll need to enter all your Google Accounts again.
Switch channels
1. Sign in to your Chromebook with the owner account.
2. Click the status area, where your account picture appears.
3. Click Settings > About Chrome OS > More info....
4. Click the Change channel... button.
5. Pick a channel from the box that appears.
https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/1086915
8/25/2016

Move to an experimental channel
Move to a more stable channel
Discuss with other Chromies in Chromebook Central.
Share this:
Casey is a Chromebook expert and author of this help page. Help her improve this article by leaving
feedback below.
Was this article helpful?

YES
NO
Operating system and browser

Stable, beta, and development
channels
Update your Chromebook operating
system
Clear browsing data
Watch video tutorials
8/25/2016

To get the latest tips, tricks, and howto's, subscribe to our YouTube Channel.
En...
2016 Google - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Contact Us
8/25/2016
Chrome Releases
The beta channel has been updated to 52.0.2743.41 for Windows, Mac, and
Linux.
A partial list of changes is available in the log. Interested in switching release

channels? Find out how. If you find a new issue, please let us know by filing
a bug. The community help forum is also a great place to reach out for help
or learn about common issues.
Richard Bustamante
Google Chrome
Labels: Beta updates
http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2016-06-15T17:16:00-07:... 8/25/2016
Chrome Releases
log
switching
how
a bug
filing
community help forum
Labels: Dev updates
here
Chrome Releases
forum
filing a bug
Find out how
Chrome Releases
here
forum
filing a bug
Find out how
Chrome Releases
The dev channel has been updated to 53.0.2763.0 for Windows, Mac, and
Linux.

Krishna Govind
Google Chrome
Labels: Dev updates
available in Google Play
Chrome Releases
Git
log
filing a bug
Chrome site
Labels: Chrome for Android Stable updates
here
forum
filing a bug
Find out how
Chrome Releases
Labels: Chrome OS Dev updates
The beta channel has been updated to 52.0.2743.33 for Windows, Mac, and
Linux.

Di Mu
Google Chrome
Labels: Beta updates
timed
reboot
Chrome Releases
here
Google for Work Connect
contacting support
Labels: Admin Console
Chrome Releases
Labels: Chrome OS Stable updates
The stable channel has been updated to 51.0.2704.84 for Windows, Mac, and
Linux.
A list of changes is available in the log. Interested in switching release

Krishna Govind
Google Chrome
Chrome Releases
Labels: Stable updates
The Beta channel has been updated to 51.0.2704.79 (Platform version:

8172.47.0)for all Chrome OS devicesexcept Dell Chromebook 11 and the
Lenovo N22 Chromebook. This build contains a number of bug fixes, security
updates and feature enhancements.
If you find new issues, please let us know by visiting ourforumorfiling a bug.
Interested in switching channels?Find out how. You can submit feedback
using Report an issue... in the Chrome menu (3 horizontal bars in the upper
right corner of the browser).
Bernie Thompson
Google Chrome
The dev channel has been updated to 53.0.2756.0 for Windows, Mac, and Linux.
Chrome Releases
A partial list of changes is available in the log. Interested in switching release channels? Find out
how. If you find a new issue, please let us know by filing a bug. The community help forum is
also a great place to reach out for help or learn about common issues.
Anantha Keesara
Google Chrome
Labels: Dev updates
The Chrome team is excited to announce the promotion of Chrome 52 to the

beta channel for Windows, Mac and Linux. Chrome 52.0.2743.24 contains our
usual under-the-hood performance and stability tweaks, as well as cool new
features to explore - head to the Chromium blog to learn more about what's
happening with Chrome!
A full list of changes in this build is available in the log. Interested in

switching release channels? Find out how here. If you find a new issue,
please let us know by filing a bug. The community help forum is also a
great place to reach out for help or learn about common issues.
Richard Bustamante
Google Chrome
Chrome Releases
The Dev channel has been updated to 52.0.2743.19, 52.0.2743.21 (Platform

version: 8350.14.0) for all Chrome OS devices except for celes and x86-alexhe . This build contains a number of bug fixes, security updates and feature
enhancements. A list of changes can be found here.
If you find new issues, please let us know by visiting our forum or filing a
bug. Interested in switching channels? Find out how. You can submit
feedback using Report an issue... in the Chrome menu (3 vertical dots in the
upper right corner of the browser).
Grace Kihumba
Google Chrome
Chrome Releases
The stable channel has been updated to 51.0.2704.79 for Windows, Mac, and
Linux.
Security Fixes and Rewards
Note: Access to bug details and links may be kept restricted until a majority of
users are updated with a fix. We will also retain restrictions if the bug exists in
a third party library that other projects similarly depend on, but havent yet
fixed.
This update includes 15 security fixes. Below, we highlight fixes that were
contributed by external researchers. Please see the Chromium security page
for more information.
[$7500][601073] High CVE-2016-1696: Cross-origin bypass in Extension
bindings. Credit to anonymous.
[$7500][613266] High CVE-2016-1697: Cross-origin bypass in Blink. Credit to
Mariusz Mlynski.
[$4000][603725] Medium CVE-2016-1698: Information leak in Extension
bindings. Credit to Rob Wu.
[$3500][607939] Medium CVE-2016-1699: Parameter sanitization failure in
DevTools. Credit to Gregory Panakkal.
[$1500][608104] Medium CVE-2016-1700: Use-after-free in Extensions.
Credit to Rob Wu.
[$1000][608101] Medium CVE-2016-1701: Use-after-free in Autofill. Credit to
Rob Wu.
[$1000][609260] Medium CVE-2016-1702: Out-of-bounds read in Skia. Credit
to cloudfuzzer.
We would also like to thank all security researchers that worked with us during
the development cycle to prevent security bugs from ever reaching the stable
channel.
Chrome Releases
As usual, our ongoing internal security work was responsible for a wide range
of fixes:
[616539] CVE-2016-1703: Various fixes from internal audits,
fuzzing and other initiatives.
Many of our security bugs are detected using AddressSanitizer,

MemorySanitizer, Control Flow Integrity or LibFuzzer.
A list of changes is available in the log. Interested in switching release

Krishna Govind
Google Chrome
Labels: Stable updates
The Beta channel has been updated to 51.0.2704.64 (Platform version:

8172.45.0)for all Chrome OS devicesexcept those listed below. This build
contains a number of bug fixes, security updates and feature enhancements.
Chrome Releases
If you find new issues, please let us know by visiting ourforumorfiling a bug.
Interested in switching channels?Find out how. You can submit feedback
using Report an issue... in the Chrome menu (3 horizontal bars in the upper
right corner of the browser).
Bernie Thompson
Google Chrome
Systems missing in this release:

Google Chromebook Pixel
Some Acer C7 Chromebooks
Lenovo Thinkpad X131e Chromebook
Lenovo ThinkPad 11e Chromebook
AOpen Chromebox Commercial
Acer Chromebook R11
Acer Chromebook 14
Labels: Beta updates Chrome OS
Chrome Releases
Anantha Keesara
Google Chrome
Labels: Dev updates
The Dev channel has been updated to 52.0.2743.0 (Platform version:

8350.1.0, 8350.2.0, 8350.3.0) for all Chrome OS devices except for x86mario, x86-zgb and expresso . This build contains a number of bug fixes,
security updates and feature enhancements. A list of changes can be found
here.
If you find new issues, please let us know by visiting our forum or filing a
bug. Interested in switching channels? Find out how. You can submit
feedback using Report an issue... in the Chrome menu (3 vertical dots in the
upper right corner of the browser).
Chrome Releases
Grace Kihumba
Google Chrome
Anantha Keesara
Google Chrome
Labels: Dev updates
Chrome Releases
Exhibit 17A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

ROBERT A. VAN NEST - # 84065
rvannest@kvn.com
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON - # 184325
canderson@kvn.com
DANIEL PURCELL - # 191424
dpurcell@kvn.com
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone:
(415) 391-5400
Facsimile:
(415) 397-7188
KING & SPALDING LLP
BRUCE W. BABER (pro hac vice)
bbaber@kslaw.com
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone:
(212) 556-2100
Facsimile:
(212) 556-2222
GOOGLE INC.
12
13
14
15
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561 WHA
16
Plaintiffs,
17
v.
18
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.S

RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.S
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
GOOGLE INC.,
19
SET ELEVEN (NO. 324)

Defendant.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
1008344
Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Google Inc.
(Google), through its attorneys, provides its Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs Requests
for Production to Defendant Google Inc., Set Eleven (Plaintiffs Eleventh Request for
Production), served by Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. (Plaintiff or Oracle) on November 4,
2015.
6
7
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.
Google responds generally that its investigation of the facts relevant to this
litigation is ongoing. Googles responses herein are given without prejudice to Googles right to
amend or supplement in accordance with Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
10
11
Civil Local Rules, the Courts Case Management Orders, and any applicable Standing Orders.
2.
Google generally objects to Plaintiffs Requests for Production, Set Eleven, and
12
the Definitions and Instructions related thereto, to the extent they are inconsistent with or
13
impose obligations beyond those required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Civil
14
Local Rules, the Case Management Orders entered by the Court, and any applicable Standing
15
Orders. In responding to each Request for Production, Google will respond as required under
16
Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
17
3.
Google generally objects to Oracles Requests for Production to the extent Oracle
18
requests materials that predate June 15, 2011 and/or otherwise seek discovery on issues, events,
19
transactions, and/or occurrences that could have, and should have been addressed, if at all, prior
20
to the original trial, including, but not limited to, where such requests were the subject of
21
discovery requests served in the discovery period preceding the original trial. Google similarly
22
objects to the extent the Requests purport to demand production of documents already produced
23
to the parties or logged on privilege logs in this action.
24
4.
Google objects to the term Documentation because it is defined by incorporating
25
the phrase relating to, which in turn renders the requests for production using the term vague,
26
ambiguous and overly broad.
27
28
5.
Google objects to the definition of the words Google, You and Your in
paragraph 1 of the Definitions of the Requests for Production as overly broad, unduly
1
1008344
burdensome, vague, and ambiguous and not proportional to the needs of the case because the
definition seeks to expand the definition of Google to include all locations, predecessors,
affiliates, successors, subsidiaries, divisions or parts thereof, parent holding companies including
without limitation, Alphabet, Inc., and all past or present directors, officers, agents,
representatives, employees, consultants, attorneys, and others acting on its behalf. Such a
definition of Google expands the definition beyond any reasonable or commonly accepted
meaning of the term. Further, Google generally objects to Oracles definitions of Google,
You, and Your as overbroad and vague to the extent the definitions purport to include
Alphabet, Inc., as Googles proposed reorganization has not yet been finalized.
10
6.
Google generally objects to Oracles definition of Android as vague, ambiguous,
11
overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case to the extent it
12
includes any versions thereof , any other works derived from Android, and any related public
13
or proprietary source code, executable code, documentation, and Google Android devices.
14
Android is an open source software project, and Google distributes the source code for Android
15
pursuant to a free and open source license that allows third parties to make modifications to the
16
Android source code that Google distributes. Accordingly, Google objects to Oracles definition
17
of Android to the extent it purports to include software created, modified, and/or distributed by
18
third parties and not Google. Similarly, Google objects to the term Google Android devices as
19
vague and ambiguous and further objects to the term as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
20
not proportional to the needs of the case to the extent it includes devices running Android
21
software that are manufactured and sold by third parties, including without limitation any original
22
equipment manufacturers, and not Google.
23
7.
Google objects to each Request for Production as premature to the extent it seeks
24
expert testimony. Google will disclose such information at the time and in the manner
25
contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Civil Local Rules, the Courts Case
26
Management Orders, and any applicable Standing Orders in this case. Google also reserves the
27
right to supplement to incorporate expert opinion and testimony at the appropriate time.
28
2
1008344
8.
Google generally objects to Plaintiffs Requests for Production, Set Eleven to the
extent (a) they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence that
is relevant to any claim or defense of any party; (b) they are unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative; (c) they seek information that is obtainable from some other source that is more
convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; or (d) the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs any likely benefit.
9.
Google generally objects to Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set Eleven as
unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case to the extent that they seek
production of data on back-up tapes or any other automatically saved files solely intended for
10
restoration of systems in the event of program failure, including, but not limited to, autosaved
11
drafts of email iteratively created for program failure restoration during the course of preparation
12
of an email. Google further states that, as of November 2012, Google ceased retaining historical
13
copies of the iteratively-created autosave drafts created for program failure restoration. Google
14
further states that it retains historical copies of and will produce (subject to any other asserted
15
objections) emails that were sent, received or saved by document custodians subject to collection
16
in this matter.
17
10.
18
extent they seek information, documents, and/or things protected from discovery by the attorney-
19
client privilege, the work product doctrine, the common-interest privilege, and/or any other
20
applicable privilege, immunity, or protection. Nothing contained in Googles responses is
21
intended to be, or in any way shall be deemed, a waiver of any such applicable privilege or
22
doctrine.
23
11.
24
extent they seek information, documents, and/or things protected from discovery by court order or
25
other restrictions on disclosure.
26
12.
27
extent they request information, documents, and/or things not within the possession, custody, or
28
control of Google, that are as readily available to Plaintiff as to Google, or that are otherwise in
3
1008344
the possession of Plaintiff, on the grounds that such requests are unduly burdensome and not
proportional to the needs of the case. Google further states that any agreement to produce is
subject to the parties negotiations regarding the appropriate scope of discovery, including, for
example, ESI search terms and custodians, and any agreements reached during the parties meet
and confers.
13.
Google incorporates by reference these General Objections into the specific
objections and responses set forth below. While Google may repeat a General Objection for
emphasis or some other reason, the failure to specifically refer to any General Objection does not
constitute a waiver of any sort. Moreover, subject to the requirements of Rule 34 of the Federal
10
Rules, Google reserves the right to alter or amend its objections and responses set forth herein as
11
additional facts are ascertained and analyzed.
12
13
14
15
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 324:
Source code and DOCUMENTATION for all GOOGLE software that can be used to
16
facilitate use of ANDROID (including software derived from ANDROID such as Brillo) on
17
devices other than mobile phones, including by way of example and not limitation source code
18
and documentation for Weave and source code and documentation for software related to porting
19
ANDROID to desktop or laptop computers.
20
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 324:
21
In addition to its General Objections, Google objects to this Request for Production as
22
overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case to the extent it
23
seeks documents related to operations of Google outside of the United States having no
24
connection with the United States or information not related to any partys claims or defenses or
25
any relevant subject matter at issue. Google further objects to this Request for Production as
26
vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case
27
as to the phrases Android and Android (including software derived from Android such as
28
Brillo). Google also objects to this Request for Production as vague, ambiguous, overly broad,
4
1008344
unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case as to the phrases can be used to
facilitate use, devices other than mobile phones, and related to porting. Google further
objects to this Request for Production to the extent that it seeks information that is the
confidential information of, or proprietary to, or the trade secret of, a third party. Google further
objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information, documents, and/or things protected from
discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the common interest
privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection.
Subject to the foregoing objections and the General Objections, without waiver or
limitation thereof, Google requests a meet and confer with Oracle to obtain an explanation of the
10
nature of materials sought by Oracle in this Request.
11
12
13
Dated: December 4, 2015.
14
15
By:
16
17
/s/ Robert A. Van Nest

ROBERT A. VAN NEST
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON
DANIEL PURCELL
GOOGLE INC.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

1008344
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California in the office of a
member of the bar of this court at whose direction the following service was made. I am over the
age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is Keker & Van
Nest LLP, 633 Battery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111-1809.
On December 4, 2015, I served the following document(s):
6
7
8
9
10
11
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO

PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES, SET 6 (NOS. 38-44)
PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.S REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION, SET 11 (NO. 324)
PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION,
SET THREE
12
13
14
15
by ELECTRONIC MAIL (PDF): Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service

by electronic mail, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document(s) to be sent
to the person(s) at the electronic notification address(es) listed below. The email was
transmitted without error.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

Karen G. Johnson-Mckewan
Annette L. Hurst
Gabriel M. Ramsey
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: 415.773.5700 / Fax: 415.773.5759
Peter A. Bicks
Lisa T. Simpson
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Tel: 212.506.5000 / Fax: 212.506.5151
24
25
26
27
kjohnson-mckewan@orrick.com
ahurst@orrick.com
gramsey@orrick.com
pbicks@orrick.com
lsimpson@orrick.com
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA
1009385.01
1
2
3
4
David Boies
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Tel: 914.749.8201 / Fax: 914.749.8300
dboies@bsfllp.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
Oracle-Google@BSFLLP.com
5
6
7
8
Steven C. Holtzman
1999 Harrison St., Ste. 900
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: 510.874.1000 / Fax: 510.874.1460
sholtzman@bsfllp.com
9
10
11
Executed on December 4, 2015, at San Francisco, California.
12
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true
and correct.
13
14
15
/s/ Edward A. Bayley

Edward A. Bayley
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA
1009385.01

Raina M. Abaya
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sarah B. Faulkner
Tuesday, December 15, 2015 8:43 PM
'Uriarte, Robert L.'; Beth Egan; Steven Ragland
Edward A. Bayley; DALVIK-KVN; Oracle/Google-OHS Only
RE: Oracle v Google- Meet and Confer Call
Rob,
I write to follow-up on our conversation yesterday.
1. Financial projections for Googles non-Android, non-mobile lines of business
First, as I stated on our call, Oracles request comes too late. I stated in my email of November 9, 2015 to Lisa Simpson that,
in spite of Googles relevance objections and in the spirit of compromise, Google would produce - and has produced - from
non-custodial sources responsive, non-privileged documents maintained in the ordinary course of business reflecting
projected revenues for Googles mobile business. Thus, Oracle has been aware of Googles position since at least
November 9, 2015. Oracle should have raised this issue prior to the close of discovery.
Second, as I stated on our call, Google does not believe financial projections of any kind are relevant to the issues in this
case. Google has communicated this position to Oracle several times, including in our meet and confer of October 16, 2015
and in my email of November 9, 2015, when I stated: We are now 10 years beyond the date of the hypothetical
negotiation, so any recent revenue projection is irrelevant to a hypothetical license. For the same reason, the logic of Judge
Ryus order even if it applied to copyright damages would not apply here. Googles revenue projections are also not
relevant to Oracles lost profits claim, which will stand or fall based on evidence of Oracles own products, services, and
business capacity. Further, Judge Alsups January 9, 2012 Order made clear that post-verdict damages will be based only on
the jurys findings regarding pre-verdict damages, not on Googles projected or actual future revenues. I then further
stated Googles position that projected revenues were not relevant to the market harm prong of the fair use defense or bad
faith. Googles position has not changed.
You stated that the non-Android financial projections are relevant to the modeling Oracles experts are doing for damages
and to show the commercial nature of the infringement. Oracles damages argument was addressed in my response of
November 9, 2015, as repeated above. The theory that financial projections for Googles non-Android lines of business bear
on the commercial nature of the infringement is new, but meritless. Google financial data may be relevant to whether
Android is commercial in nature, but Oracle already has Google financial data from the inception of Android to the end of
2015 to make that argument, as well as the PnLs for all of Googles non-Android lines of business. Future financial
projections provide no incremental proof of Androids commercial nature.
Third, I told you I would inquire whether Google could and would provide this information, to the extent it exists,
notwithstanding its relevance objections. I can confirm that, as Oracles financial designee Edward Senteno testified is true
for Oracle, Google does not establish financial projections in the normal course of its business other than during its process
of planning for the immediate next fiscal year. With respect to FY 2016, which begins in January, Google is still in the
process of developing these projections, and thus does not have any such financial projections beyond Q4 2015.
2. Future Products
First, as I stated on our call, Googles position on what it would produce as to future products has been clear since at least
November 9, 2015, when I stated that, in spite of Googles relevance objections and in the spirit of compromise, Google
would collect and produce relevant executive presentations and product plans that reflect Googles plans with respect to
1

future mobile products. Googles position has not changed, nor did Ms. Simpson respond to my email of November 9, 2015
or ever otherwise question Googles agreement to produce.
Second, as I stated on our call, Google does not believe this information is relevant to the issues in this case. As I stated in
the meet and confer of October 16, 2015, future products may never become actual products, and therefore this evidence is
speculative.
Third, you inquired about two such future products and asked whether we were producing documents on those. First, as
to "Android versions using OpenJDK," we have produced relevant, non-privileged documents and other materials,
including Source Code for inspection at KVNs offices, which I understand Oracle has inspected multiple times. As for
custodial documents, if any responsive, non-privileged documents have been collected in connection with the custodial
searches agreed to by the parties, those documents have been or will be produced. Further, I understand Oracle deposed
Anwar Ghuloum, whose custodial documents were produced, on this very topic. I note that Google disclosed its
development of Android versions using OpenJDK on November 12, 2015, and it is now the eve of the close of discovery. The
time for requesting additional ESI search terms has passed. Second, you also asked about a purported project to port
Android to desktop. It is unclear to what you are referring.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Regards, Sarah
From: Uriarte, Robert L. [mailto:ruriarte@orrick.com]

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 4:06 PM
To: Sarah B. Faulkner; Beth Egan; Steven Ragland
Cc: Edward A. Bayley; DALVIK-KVN; Oracle/Google-OHS Only
Subject: RE: Oracle v Google- Meet and Confer Call
Ok, sorry about that. We will be on the line at 4:15.

Rob
From: Sarah B. Faulkner [mailto:SFaulkner@kvn.com]
To: Uriarte, Robert L.; Beth Egan; Steven Ragland
Rob,
Thats short notice. I am on another call, but I can call in at 4:15 pm.
Thanks - Sarah
To: Sarah B. Faulkner; Beth Egan; Steven Ragland
Hi Sarah. We can join a call now. Please use my dial in:

(866) 244-1129
Passcode: 8248 040#
2

Thanks
Rob
From: Sarah B. Faulkner [mailto:SFaulkner@kvn.com]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 11:20 AM
To: Uriarte, Robert L.; Beth Egan; Steven Ragland
Rob,
I write to follow-up on conferring as to the following two issues on Oracles agenda that were not addressed on Friday:
-
Financial Projections RFPs (RFPs 229, 230, 234-239, 251)

Future products RFPs (RFPs 211, 219, 220, 221, 230, 239)
Can you meet at 4 pm today?

Thanks - Sarah

Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 3:30 PM
To: Beth Egan; Steven Ragland
Ok, we are calling in now. Some of us may have to drop quickly but lets see what we can resolve and then we can
reconvene later if necessary
From: Beth Egan [mailto:BEgan@kvn.com]
To: Uriarte, Robert L.; Steven Ragland
Rob,
We would prefer to keep with the 3:30 start time because two of our team members have hard stops at 5 PST. Can we
begin the call and at least cover the issues that we can with those who are available? Otherwise, we will agree to begin at
4:30 but cant guarantee our team members can stay on to cover the issues.
Thanks,
Beth
Hi Beth. Apologies, but we need to push this call to 4:30. Please let us know if that doesnt work for your team.
3

Thanks
Rob
To: Uriarte, Robert L.; Steven Ragland
Rob,
Thanks for the agenda. We will be prepared to address the issues you list below, with the exception of Annettes email to
Dan Purcell sent this morning. Dan is in deposition today and will respond to Annette separately with regard to those issues.
Thanks,
Beth
Thanks Beth.
Here are the issues we would like to discuss:
-
Oracles motion for protective order re: IBM deposition

Missing Google financial documents (see Annettes prior email)
Source code production/inspection
Android download metrics (see Alyssas prior email)
Apple agreement(s) (see Alyssas prior email)
Financial Projections RFPs (RFPs 229, 230, 234-239, 251)
Future products RFPs (RFPs 211, 219, 220, 221, 230, 239)
Please use my dial in (866) 244-1129

Passcode 8248 040#
Rob

Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 8:01 PM
To: Steven Ragland; Uriarte, Robert L.
Rob,
To follow up on Stevens email, Sarah Faulkner and I are available tomorrow at 3:30 PST for a meet and confer call.

I had not yet received any response to my email (attached) requesting a meet and confer tomorrow concerning Oracles
responses to the RFAs and RFPs referred to in my email. The attached email outlines the issues we intend to raise on
tomorrows call. I understand that Oracle would like to raise issues relating to Googles RFP responses that would not be
resolved by any pending compromise over search terms. Could you please send us a brief agenda by tomorrow morning of
the issues you intend to raise so that we can prepare to address those issues?
Thanks,
Beth
From: Steven Ragland

Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 6:52 PM
To: Uriarte, Robert L.
Cc: Edward A. Bayley; Beth Egan; DALVIK-KVN; Oracle/Google-OHS Only
Subject: Re: Oracle v Google- Meet and Confer Call
RobI thought we left it that you were going to reach out to Beth and/or Sarah to set up a time. Regardless, one of them will get
back to you on this shortly.
Thanks,
--Steven
On Dec 10, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Uriarte, Robert L. <ruriarte@orrick.com> wrote:
Ed and team:
Yesterday we asked you to propose a time for today for a call to meet and confer regarding
remaining discovery disputes. As it doesnt look like that call is going to happen today, please
propose some times for tomorrow. Our team is available after 3:30 pacific.
Thanks
Rob
ROBERT L. URIARTE
Managing Associate
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
tel +1-650-289-7105
fax +1-650-614-7401
ruriarte@orrick.com
bio vcard
www.orrick.com
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the
error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com.
5

Raina M. Abaya
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sarah B. Faulkner
Monday, November 09, 2015 1:48 PM
'Simpson, Lisa T.'; Beth Egan; Reid P. Mullen
Oracle/Google-OHS Only; DALVIK-KVN
RE: Oracle v. Google: Meet and Confer Follow Up
Dear Lisa,
I write in response to your email of Thursday, October 22, 2015, which was a follow up to our discussion on Friday, October
16, 2015. In our meet and confer on October 16, 2015, we discussed 45 of Oracles RFPs, including 209, 211, 213, 214, 218,
219, 220, 221, 227, 229, 230, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 243, 244, 249, 251, 252, 254, 258, 271, 272, 273,
276, 277, 280, 281, 282, 283, 289, 290, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301. In that discussion, we clarified the scope of a number
of RFPs, including at least 272, 282, and 289, and Google will supplement its responses to these RFPs accordingly.
Moreover, in meet and confer, Google identified a number of overarching issues that affect the scope of multiple RFPs, and
we requested a further explanation from you as to Oracles position regarding why the documents Oracle seeks with respect
to those categories of information are relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in the coming retrial. Thank you for the additional information you provided in your email as to these overarching issues; we respond to
your positions below.
Requests re: Future Products
As discussed on our call, Google believes that the scope of RFPs relating to future products, e.g., 211, 219, and 220, is
overbroad to the extent these RFPs seek documents relating to future products. Google continues to disagree that the
production of documents relating to Googles future products is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this
case. However, in the spirit of compromise and in an attempt to avoid unnecessary motion practice, subject to its already
stated objections, Google will collect and produce relevant executive presentations and product plans that reflect Googles
plans with respect to future mobile products. Google will supplement its response to these RFPs accordingly.
Requests re: Projected Revenues
Oracle also propounded numerous requests that seek various categories of financial documents. As discussed in meet and
confer, these requests are overbroad to the extent they seek documents relating to Googles projected future revenues,
e.g. RFPs 219, 220, 221, 230, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 251. Discovery relating to projected revenues will not lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence in this case. We are now 10 years beyond the date of the hypothetical negotiation, so any
recent revenue projection is irrelevant to a hypothetical license. For the same reason, the logic of Judge Ryus order even
if it applied to copyright damages would not apply here. Googles revenue projections are also not relevant to Oracles lost
profits claim, which will stand or fall based on evidence of Oracles own products, services, and business capacity. Further,
Judge Alsups January 9, 2012 Order made clear that post-verdict damages will be based only on the jurys findings regarding
pre-verdict damages, not on Googles projected or actual future revenues. We also disagree that revenue projections would
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with regard to the market harm prong of the fair use defense or bad faith.
Nevertheless, in the spirit of compromise and in an attempt to avoid motion practice, subject to Googles already stated
objections, Google will produce from non-custodial sources responsive, non-privileged documents maintained in the
ordinary course of business reflecting projected revenues for Googles mobile business. Google will supplement its
responses accordingly.
Requests re network effects
In meet and confer and in your email dated October 22, you clarified that in RFPs 232, 240, 244 and 254, Oracle is seeking
documents describing or quantifying indirect effects Android has on Googles business. Subject to its already stated
1

objections, Google has already produced non-privileged, responsive documents from non-custodial sources maintained in
the ordinary course of business reflecting the revenues, profits, and costs related to Android, to the extent such documents
exist. Relatedly, Google tracks advertising revenue related to Android, and, as stated above, documents related to those
effects have been produced. Google does not otherwise quantify or track in the ordinary course of business any other such
network effects related to Android. Google will supplement its response accordingly.
Requests re: Googles non-mobile, non-Android business
Google does not agree that documents relating to Googles non-mobile, non-Android business are relevant to this case, and
therefore the scope of RFPs such as 209, 249, 251, 252 to the extent they relate to non-mobile unrelated to Android -- is
over broad. On our meet and confer conference of October 16, 2015, you argued that Judge Ryus August 23, 2011 order
decided this issue. In that order, however, which related to Oracles requests for Googles non-mobile data and financial
projections, Judge Ryu stated unequivocally that Oracle has made absolutely no showing that the alleged infringement of
certain Java class libraries is causally connected to Googles advertising revenues. Oracles copyright damage argument is
therefore too speculative to support these discovery requests.
Despite this finding in Judge Ryus order, Oracle continues to assert that the order supports, rather than undercuts, its
position. We disagree. Although a plaintiff may under certain circumstances recover indirect profits in a copyright
infringement matter, the causal link you describe in your email is far too speculative (as noted by Judge Ryu) to support the
discovery you are requesting in these RFPs relating to Googles non-mobile business. You also point to Judge Alsups July 22,
2011 order. But that order only allowed Oracle to base its damages model on then-expected advertising revenue so long as
apportionment is done, because [t]he relationship between Android and Googles advertising revenues would have been
known to the parties at the time of the hypothetical negotiation. That order is not a perpetual carte blanche requiring
production of all of Googles financial documents relating to its non-mobile business. Further, as noted above, subject to its
already stated objections, Google has produced non-privileged, responsive documents from non-custodial sources
maintained in the ordinary course of business reflecting the revenues, profits, and costs related to Android, to the extent
such documents exist. And, as noted above, Google does not otherwise track in the ordinary course of business any other
financial metrics related to Android.
I note that your request for production of pre-June 15, 2011 documents for Henrique de Castro has been addressed in other
correspondence.
Requests re: Mobile devices not running Android
Certain of Oracles RFPs, e.g. 221, 227, 238, 241, 243, and 258, request a wide range of information relating to mobile
devices not running Android. Googles primary concern here is with the breadth of the requests. Google disagrees with
Oracles claim that such information is relevant to fair use. However, Google understands that certain non-Android mobile
financials and other information may be relevant to damages. Thus, subject to its already stated objections, Google will
produce non-privileged, responsive documents from non-custodial sources maintained in the in the ordinary course of
business that relate to mobile devices not running Android, including financials showing revenue, mobile strategy
documents and mobile marketing documents.
Number of Ads served
During the meet and confer of October 16, 2015, you stated that Oracle believes the number of ads served on Android
devices is relevant to the fair use analysis and damages. Google disputes that this information is relevant to the damages
analysis under copyright law, which, depending on the theory at issue, requires proof of (1) Oracle's own lost profits; (2) the
hypothetical licensing negotiation between Sun and Google in 2005; or (3) an apportionment of Google's Android-related
profits attributable to the copyrighted material at issue. Even assuming (without conceding) that the information Oracle
seeks could be tangentially relevant to damages, that limited relevance would be dwarfed by the burden of gathering this
data. Further, Google has already produced the revenue generated from ads served on Android devices.
We will consider a further explanation for why the number of ads served is relevant to fair use.
Request for Production 290
2

As discussed on our meet and confer call, Google offered to produce non-privileged, responsive documents, to the extent
such documents exist, for the latter part of Oracles request no. 290: DOCUMENTS related to any analysis or discussion of
the ability, feasibility, or advisability of removing or replacing the 37 JAVA API PACKAGES or SSO from ANDROID. In your
email of October 22, 2015, Oracle rejected this narrowing, reiterating its request that Google provide documents responsive
to the entire request. Google continues to believe this request is overbroad. Oracle has only alleged infringement of 37
specific Java method headers, not the entire Java Platform. Google requests that Oracle appropriately narrow the request.
Request for Production 249
During the meet and confer, we expressed concern about the extremely overbroad nature of this RFP, which purports to
request every document related to any statement in any Google public financial statement. No proposed narrowing was
offered, other than to suggest Oracle would like to see briefing books. Google continues to object to this RFP as so
overbroad that no meaningful search can be made for responsive documents. Please propose a narrowed version of this
request.
Lastly, we note that although you said you would get back to us with respect to certain RFPs, for example 237, 297-300 and
301, we have not yet received a response. With respect to other RFPs on which we have reached agreement, Google
already has or is preparing for production of those documents. Further, we note that with respect to RFPs that require the
search of custodial data, we expect that any remaining issues with regard to scope of those requests will be resolved in the
resolution of search terms.
Best,
Sarah
From: Simpson, Lisa T. [mailto:lsimpson@orrick.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 3:18 PM
To: Beth Egan; Reid P. Mullen
Cc: Oracle/Google-OHS Only; DALVIK-KVN
Subject: Oracle v. Google: Meet and Confer Follow Up
Dear Beth and team:

We write to follow up on various meet and confer issues that we have been discussing over the past couple of
weeks.
Pre-2011 Custodians and Search Terms: We have provided you with comprehensive information that
makes clear the relevance of the custodians whose pre-2011 documents we are seeking despite the fact that
this information in entirely within your knowledge. Given the involvement that the named custodians had in the
decisions Google was making at the time it acquired Sun, for example, Google has no excuse for not having
searched these custodians the first time around if it was operating consistent with its discovery obligations. We
have provided a limited set of search terms, only one of which was not run last time, and have narrowed our
request to an entirely reasonable and doable search. We have now discussed this issue at length. As set forth in
Annettes email to Ed of yesterday, we would like an answer by the end of the week as to whether Google will
agree to search these custodians for pre-2011 documents or not or we will raise this issue with Judge Alsup.
Google custodians: As you indicated in our meet and confer last week, we were expecting to received
Googles refined list of custodians yesterday. We need to move forward on the discovery plan ASAP. Oracle is
already preparing to search the custodians that it has identified as likely to have information responsive to
Googles requests and we do not think we should delay the process any further given the looming discovery
deadline. Please provide your custodian list ASAP or we will have to raise this issue with Alsup as well.
Googles Privilege Log Documents: Please advise as to when we can expect the production of the
improperly withheld, non-privileged documents identified in Annettes prior emails.
3

Production of Brillo, ARC Welder and financial documents: You indicated that you would get us a firm
date for production of these materials by early this week but have not. Please let us know immediately when we
can expect these materials. Obviously, they are important to our experts work.
Googles Interrogatory Responses: You indicated on our call last week that we would have supplemental
rog responses to Interrogatories 30, 34, and 36 this week we have not received them. Please provide those
supplemental responses immediately.
Googles RFA Responses:
270: You have now supplemented this response to indicate that Google derives profits from advertising. We note
that although the request specifically asks about profits, you have not revised your statements with respect to
Google Play and direct to consumer sales of hardware, sticking with your original formulation of revenue. Does
that mean that it is Googles position that it derives no profits from these additional activities? Again, we reiterate
our request for a fully supplemented answer that addresses profits the request is clear.
271: We understand that your issue with this RFA is that the definition of Java Platform includes Java
programming language. Oracle is prepared to remove java programming language from the definition of Java
Platform in its requests for purposes of this RFA. Please advise whether with this clarification, Google can
supplement its answer to this RFA.
272: This request, we understood, has the same concerns as 271. We agree to modify the definition of Java
Platform for this request as well. Please advise whether Google will now supplement its response.
275 and 276 The responses to these requests remain ambiguous. The ambiguity arises from the clause some,
but not all the question it raises is this: is that clause merely intended to indicate Googles position that it did not
copy all the declaring code from the 37 packages OR by this clause is Google trying to indicate that it decided to
copy some of the declaring code before November 7 and decided to copy other of the declaring code after
November 7. We believe, after discussions with you, that it is the former, but we request a supplemental response
that makes that clear.
Googles Response to RFPs:

On our call we discussed the 40-plus requests where Google has indicated in response that it needs to meet and
confer in order to understand the scope of the request. As we discussed those requests, there were a number of
broad objections made by Google that were recurring. Below we set forth in further detail our response to several
of those objections with the expectation that this will satisfy your concerns as to these issues and we can agree to
move forward with production of documents. We also address some of the more specific requests that we
indicated we would get back to you on:
Future Products and Projections (RFP Nos. 211, 219, 220, 229, 230, 234, 235, 236, 237, 239)
Documents relating to Googles future product plans and revenue projections are highly relevant to this
case. Specifically, how Google plans to use Android in the future is relevant to the fourth fair use factor, because it
will indicate how, whether, and to what extent Google intends to use Android to compete further with Java in
Javas historical, intended, and potential markets. Similarly, documents relating to Googles planned future
revenue are relevant to the size and scope of the actual and potential markets under that same factor. The extent
of Googles intended use of Java in Android in future products is also relevant to the bad faith analysis because it
demonstrates Googles ongoing willful infringement and expansion of that infringement. Finally, the revenues that
Google plans to earn from further use of Java in Android in future products is information that our damages
experts are entitled to review to assist in their assessment of harm. During the meet-and-confer, you expressed
concern over Google producing information about future products. The Protective Order provides ample
protection for the production of sensitive documents, including by designating documents Attorneys Eyes
Only. Accordingly, confidentiality is not an appropriate ground to withhold relevant information.
4

Indirect Profits, Non-Mobile Business and Devices Not Running Android (RFP Nos. 209, 218, 221, 227, 232,
238, 241, 243, 244, 249, 251, 252, 258)
As requested specifically in RFP 232, the indirect revenues and profits that Google derives from Android will be a
part of the calculation of damages in this case. As set forth in Polar Bear Productions, Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384
F.3d 700, 711, 714 n.10 (9th Cir. 2004), a plaintiff may recover indirect profits in a copyright infringement matter if
that plaintiff establish[es] a causal relationship between the infringement and the profits generated indirectly from
such infringement. Without the Java APIs, there was no Android. For this reason, many of the network effects
that Androids success has had on other areas of Googles business are also attributable to Java, and are thus a
part of the damages calculation.
In addition, documents reflecting metrics relating to the success of Googles non-mobile business, including the
impact of Android on that business, are also highly relevant to this case. To the extent Googles release of
Android has positively impacted Googles non-mobile business, that fact also will be relevant to the damages
calculation. In addition, data concerning Googles valuation of the distribution of its search on non-Android devices
(such as the documents requested in Request No. 221), is directly relevant to showing the benefit that Google
received by its head start in the mobile businessa head start largely occasioned by use of the Java API
packages at issue. Googles overall benefit from Android will also be relevant to fair use, because it will show that
the purpose and character of Googles use of Java in Android was commercial and motivated by a desire to
improve Googles business across the board. It will also be relevant to bad faith and Googles motivation for using
the Java APIs.
Documents relating to Googles revenue and other benefits derived from devices not running Android are similarly
relevant to this matter. Oracle is entitled to compare the benefits Google receives from devices running Android to
the benefits it receives from devices that do not run Android. This information will be relevant to the first fair use
factor, because it will show that the purpose and character of Googles use of Java in Android is commercial and
the fourth factor, as it shows the nature of the market. This information will also be relevant to damages, because
it will show with specificity the extent to which the Android operating system itself, as opposed to Googles
applications, contributes to Googles revenues.
During the meet-and-confer, you mentioned that a prior discovery order in this matter indicated that metrics
relating to the success of Googles non-mobile business were not relevant to Oracles copyright claim. That order
looked solely at relevance to damages (not fair use), and ignores everything that happened since August 23,
2011. Both the expert reports served after that date and the documents and testimony demonstrated such a
causal link. Indeed, Googles own technical expert Dr. Astrachan admitted that Android would not work without the
purloined code. Googles President of Mobile and Platforms, Henrique de Castro, declared at Googles 2010
Mobile Summit that Google would be out of business in 10 years if it did not succeed in the mobile market. No
Java APIs, no Android. No Android, no Google. This kind of but-for causal link more than satisfies the legal
requirements under copyright law. And Judge Alsup recognized that advertising revenues were properly included
in the copyright damages analysis. See ECF No. 230, 7/22/2011 Order at 9:14-10:2. Moreover, Oracles expert
reports served before the first trial describe that Google chose to use Java in Android in order to go-to-market
faster, and that the speed with which Google was able to go-to-market with Android directly impacted the adoption
and success of Android, which in turn assisted Googles non-mobile business. Indeed, that is exactly what Mr. De
Castro expressed in his speech at the Google mobile summit in 2010. We expect that other documents he
created will reflect a similar view, but of course Google did not produce his documentsand as you know, we are
now requesting them. It is apparent from the few documents we do have that Google viewed Android as critical to
its overall success. Oracle is entitled to other documents discussing Googles strategy for non-Android search.
Alternatives to Java (RFP No. 290)
Oracle continues to demand that Google produce documents responsive to the entirety of this request, and not
simply documents responsive to the last few lines of this request. The entirety of this request seeks documents
relevant to the first, third and fourth fair use factors and to damages. Documents relating to alternatives to using
the Java Platformwhether the alternative is a substitute platform or removal of the 37 Java API Packagesare
relevant to assessing the substantiality and importance of the copied work. For example, feasibility evaluations on
potential substitute platforms could indicate how important the use of the Java Platform and the 37 Java API
Packages were (and are) to the development of Android. The notorious Lindholm email that Google tried to shield
5

with improper claims of attorney-client privilege is a prime example. In that email, Mr. Lindholm discusses the
possibility that Google might pretend to Oracle it would use Obj-C rather than Java. Beyond Mr. Lindholms work,
did Google evaluate Obj-C, C, C++ or any other alternative? Clearly the Court already considers this subject
matter to be highly relevant.
These documents will likely also be relevant to the purpose and character of the use, in that they will show that
Googles use of the 37 Android packages was not transformative. These documents are also relevant to market
harm as related to the availability of options in the market and the definition of the market generally.
We look forward to your response to the above matters,
Lisa
LISA T. SIMPSON
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019-6142
tel +1-212-506-3767
fax +1-212-506-5151
lsimpson@orrick.com
bio vcard
www.orrick.com
DALVIK: FURTHER MEET AND CONFER

DATE: December 9, 2015
Participants:
Participants (KVN): Ed Bayley and Steven Ragland
Participants (ORRICK): Rob Uriarte
Participants (OTHER): Unknown womans voice
SPEAKER
Rob Uriarte
TEXT
I think where were at is um - were ready to move unless we can compromise on the
ESI queries and just to be clear, your last email, if Im reading it correctly, I think youre
saying that Googles position is just an all or nothing compromise, so either we agree to
the terms that youre gonna run or we have to file a motion. Is that am I reading that
email right?
Ed Bayley
No, I think what I was saying in my email is that weve had a number of back and forth
where weve negotiated on terms and youve we thought wed come to a position
where, you know, the parties are in their final positions (unintelligible) Oracles offer of a
new revision to what theyre proposing, and then we decide whether or not we can accept
any of these. So, just as a primary point, as I said, __________________, said we are
now close to close of facts recovery. Not gonna be able to run in any additions in terms
and produce documents beyond what has already been for any of these new terms Ive
just been offered now. And so, our position is just were at this late stage. Weve run the
terms and tried to do everything to see where we are and whether or not you know- how
reasonable and how responsive they are and there are a handful that we could accept, but
only if it comes with an agreement that, this is it, this is done. Youre not going to file a
motion. Right? Were kind of at the end of our offers of compromises. Were definitely
going to run this term, or were willing to run the terms as a compromise. At this point,
unless theres any way that there isnt going to be a dispute left if we agree to run these
terms, then were not really in any position to accept it at this stage because were already
past the point of no return, so to speak.
Rob Uriarte
So, initially there was a set of uh 72 terms, I believe. So-
Ed Bayley
Well it depends on how you do the counting. We offered 32 terms, you added 72 terms,
32 of which were just rewrites of our initial 32.
Rob Uriarte
Sure so what Im trying to get at is, I think we have reached agreement on certain terms
where either we propose revisions or you propose revisions that reduce the hit count
significantly and I think were in agreement on those. And Im just trying to make sure
that the good work that weve done on those terms isnt gonna fall apart based on what
were gonna start talking about right now, which is the remaining 33 requests that are still
1
SPEAKER
TEXT
in dispute.
Ed Bayley
No, I dont mean to give that impression. Were moving forward with our we havent
had the luxury of waiting for the court to resolve anything on our (unintelligible), but
weve had to move forward with the understanding that the compromise will be accepted
at some point, just because we have to have these documents reviewed. But now were
kind of past that point, so unless we have an agreement that as long as we run these
additional terms, that youve now proposed for the first time, uh, and thats gonna resolve
this, that were not going to go forward and get started on trying to run these because
theres were already past the point of no return on getting this done by December 16.
So, I was just making the point that unless theres actually some room for us to actually
resolve here on the call today, that if we run these terms, youre not going to file a motion
and were not going to be agreeing to run anything additional from the call.
Rob Uriarte
Okay but were only talking about the
Ed Bayley
Were talking about the terms that you sent on Monday.
Rob Uriarte
Cool. And the terms that werent included in that list on Monday are terms where weve
already reached an agreement so Yeah, I mean, weve certainly offered it as our compromise. We havent agreed that these
are, you know, proper terms. Weve agreed as our compromise that if you were to agree
to these terms we would well agree to run them. Its still our position that these are
compromise terms that were running. Were only happy to run them now because were
not so close down to the wire in discovery. But, this is the long way of saying, we are
moving forward with these terms, but they are these terms that weve accepted since our
initial proposals, but were not taking the position that we have already fulfilled an
agreement on that because these were part of our compromise proposal in order to resolve
this dispute. So we are moving forward on running those terms (unintelligible).
Ed Bayley
Rob Uriarte
Okay, cool. And so just to confirm: when we get off the call Ill send you a list of what I
think that set of terms is and if Im wrong
Ed Bayley
Yeah, its in our emails, but, if you want to send a confirming email, you can.
Rob Uriarte
Okay cool. So then turning to the live disputes that we have. What is the best way to do
this? Should we just mark down are there any off the bat that you guys are willing to
make a compromise on?
Male voice 3(?)
I think that one goes to Steven
Male voice 4
(Steven?)
I think the question first is sort of a gating question for you all is that is your position
that unless we agree to run the additional 30 whatever terms there are that you all
proposed on Monday, youre going to move? And if thats the case, if thats your position,
we oughta do it or you move, then I think we can be done with this call because thats not
2
SPEAKER
TEXT
a position were going to agree to.
Rob Uriarte
Yeah, were not that were not that black and white on this. Its not like, if you dont
agree to run every single one were going to move, if you agree to run most of them, and
most of the ones that are important, then I think we can were certainly prepared to
compromise.
Steven(?)
Then why dont you identify the ones that are most important ones and then if those are
ones that we think we might be able to do, then we have something to talk about.
Otherwise, we can move onto other things.
Rob Uriarte
Id really like to just to get your position on whether youre going to run these.
Steven(?)
The problem is that weve now been talking for weeks about going that way and theres
never an end to it. Theres additional terms, additional terms, additional terms, additional
terms, and so what would be more helpful, I think, is sort of your final if this were a
negotiation about a resolution, whats your final best, and either we do that or we dont.
Because this is sort of death by a thousand cuts. We keep trying to compromise thinking
were making progress and then, theres another whole list of terms and so thats the
frustration here with a week left to go before discovery cutoff.
Rob Uriarte
Yeah, there will be no extra terms. Lets just run through and a yes no for each one and if
it looks like there are you know theres room for compromise then well do that.
Steven(?)
The problem though is again, and what Im trying to do is reap some resolution on this.
And it seems that that seems a very elusive thing where I thought we were having final
changes of terms but the goalposts seem to keep moving. So the problem is that if we go
through and say, as a part of a compromise we might go run this or that term, then that
again moves the goalposts. What Id like to know is are why dont we do this: are there
specific terms on this list that absolutely Oracle believes are you must run this or well
move on it. If settled, please identify those, and then we can go from there.
Rob Uriarte
But I already sent you so weve already whittled down we abandoned a bunch of
queries, weve modified a bunch of queries, so I dont we gave you the last offer. So
now youre asking us to negotiate against ourselves and start eliminating our own
requests. I dont think thats the right way to go. Lets just run theres not that many
lets just run through and you can the other thing about this is if we do need to move
youre going to need to explain the basis for your position, so I dont think the way that
you propose to proceed makes sense. Lets just run through it.
Ed Bayley
Now hold on - I I think it makes perfect sense, because I __________ our position at the
beginning of this call, is, if it is your position that you are not changing that you are not
backing off any of these terms, that youre going to move unless we agreed to all of these
terms, then theres really nothing for us to talk about. Weve been compromising for
weeks and if theres going to be a motion at this point, were not going to make any
3
SPEAKER
Rob Uriarte
(multiple voices
talking at once)
Steven Ragland
TEXT
further compromises unless it resolves the motion in its entirety. Im happy to explain our
positions as to each of these, but Im not going to go through and offer compromises on
things arent actually going to resolve anything, because youre going to move forward.
So maybe a way to shortcut this, because there is at least one issue which I think is
could be enough to kind of figure out where the parties are going to end up here but
youve identified three terms that result in a high number of hits that you said in your
email on Monday that Google has to go back in and craft new search terms for. So Im
going to tell you on this call, that we are not crafting any new search terms the week
before close of fact discovery. And if it is your position that we have to or youre going
to move, then on those three terms, then I dont think theres anything more for us to talk
about.
Okay well, when we get to those terms, maybe we can talk about what youre producing
or what you will produce, and maybe theres not dispute there. So Unintelligible
Why dont you answer the question that was posed? And then I mean were trying to
make this the most efficient call possible so we can all get back to other work, including
getting documents out as quickly as possible. So thats a gating question. Id like to get
an answer to it.
Rob Uriarte
All right, lets go to it. Which term are you referring to?
Ed Bayley
So these are the terms that youve identified as requiring Google to craft terms, so Im
going to scroll down, and-
Rob Uriarte
I think 22 is the first one Ive got, Android was in 25, Vodaphone or Cingular, thats the
start of the queries.
Ed Bayley
Yeah, so this is the term forty-two. Yeah.
Rob
So, what have you produced regarding Android business with these entities?
Ed Bayley
Were producing on a custodial basis, the _____________ and the right share agreements
and the anti-fragmentation agreements for set on a non-custodial basis that are
responsive to some of these RFPs that youve identified here subject to our objections.
Rob Uriarte
So youre not producing any custodial documents?
Ed Bayley
The custodial documents that were producing so I can go through these RFPs one by
one, but I will say on a custodial basis, of the then again, sticking with search term 42,
youve identified 8 different RFPs here, so of those 8 RFPs, were producing on a
custodial basis two of them, for 257, were producing custodial documents based on
search term 11, and for 265, we are producing custodial documents based on search term
17.
4
SPEAKER
TEXT
Rob Uriarte
Okay. So 11 and 17 for the custodial productions on those?
Ed Bayley
And for non-custodial productions were collecting agreements, were collecting

documents from public and were directing to public sources in response to 258. We
are producing custodial sources including both agreements and you know, Googles
website developer type things like that.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. Have you already produced any of that stuff that we might be able to look at some
exemplars or you havent produced it yet?
Ed Bayley
Weve produced some. I couldnt tell you sitting here on this call what exactly weve
produced yet.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. All right, well I can say that I dont think that this is a deal breaker so lets keep
going. The next one is Android its the one that starts ___________ and 25 vehicle or
car.
Ed Bayley
Uh, yeah so its 46. Youve identified I think it may be the same, 8 terms and for this
one we are producing in response to RFP 257 well just for everyones sake this is
being recorded, the RFPs hes identified are 219, 229, 237, 257, 265, 267 and 268. In
response to RFP 257 we are producing custodial documents using search term 11 and in
response to RFP 265 we are producing documents ______________ search term 17. And
just so were clear, because the numbers, Im sure, have changed over time. So for 17 its
the term Android within 10 of (Java within 10) is compatible or incompatible or
developer or developers etc. Thats 17. I think that lines up with the number we have for
this, to make that clear.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. Next, okay so again, I dont think thats a deal breaker and I guess, same question,
can you please tell me what youve produced already on that or no?
Ed Bayley
No. Well, hold on let me-
Steven Ragland
And while hes looking into that, let me ask when you say its not a deal breaker, does
that mean, okay you accept the fact that we dont need to craft terms? That were done
with that that youre not pressing forward on that one?
Rob Uriarte
It means that were willing to compromise on this stuff ending the rest of this
conversation. So if, for example, youre going to run everything and these are the only
three things that we have in dispute, I dont think we want to take the courts time with it.
But if youre gonna stonewall us on all of the requests, then yeah, this will be something
well have to do about.
Steven Ragland
Wow, aside from the loaded line stonewall, which I think is completely inaccurate, um, it
5
SPEAKER
TEXT
just would be helpful okay so what are the other terms so I think it would be helpful
to know which are the again there must be something off this list thats a deal breaker
for you all, but we just identified two that were for us, so now quid pro quo.
Rob Uriarte
Im entitled to your position on this stuff so Im going in the order you asked. Now were
on this term that starts with maps or search or calendar.
Steven Ragland
Yep.
Ed Bayley
So for this one, these are all documents to the extent were producing from custodial
sources so for the 6 RFPs here, were either pointing to public sources or collecting from
non-custodial sources, I should say.
Rob Uriarte
Okay, so for the custodial productions on the apps, what term can we look to on that?
Ed Bayley
You mean for 49?
Rob Uriarte
Yeah, I think thats the one that starts with maps or search.
Ed Bayley
Yeah, so what Im saying here is were not we havent agreed to produce documents
relating to just specific apps on a custodial basis. The specific categories of documents
relating to apps that weve agreed to produce on a non-custodial basis, but, you know,
were talking about Google applications in the abstract. That only has marginal relevance
to this case and these are search terms that are also resulting in millions of documents.
The RFPs weve pointed to each of them you know weve only were only planning
to produce on a non-custodial basis and collect them on a non-custodian basis.
Rob Uriarte
So only non-custodial
Ed Bayley
I mean, I can walk through each RFP if you want (unintelligible something like save us
time.)
Rob Uriarte
No, I dont think thats necessary. So, in terms of our requests that ask for information
related to distribution of Google applications, youre only producing on a non-custodial
basis?
Ed Bayley
Yes. So it would be things like, agreements with partners about those distributions.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. Thanks. Again, I dont think thats a deal breaker so lets jump to the top. We
propose Android within 10 of strategy or roadmap or plan or vision and we included here
finance and business limitations then um where are we on that?
Ed Bayley
So, on this one, again, with all the caveats that Ive put out at the beginning of this call,
assuming we can come to a holistic agreement that resolves it, and with the understanding
that any additional documents collected by these revisions will be produced after
6
SPEAKER
TEXT
December 16, you know, that is a term that we may be able to come to a compromise on.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. And just for the record, if you tell me this was something like if you wanted to
say were willing to compromise on this one Im not going to take that as a done deal. I
realize its got to be a package deal for the purposes of this call so, I understand your
position on that. This is one where compromise (unintelligible). Um, next term.
Ed Bayley
This is another one where again, depending on the timing, because this one still has a
significant number of hits, but I think its also one that were willing to compromise on.
Cool. Next term starts Android and - and then its got the API packages.
Rob Uriarte
Ed Bayley
Yeah so, this is another one where assuming we can come to some kind of an agreement,
wed be willing to compromise on this one.
Rob Uriarte
Great. Next term is Android within 10 of ad or ads or advertising and the variable
_____________________.
Ed Bayley
Uh yeah, this is another one where wed be willing to compromise but depending on the
timing because it still has a significant number of hits. But wed be willing to
compromise.
Rob Uriarte
Great. And then the next one, I tried to address you mentioned that the word value
was bringing in a lot of noise to I tried to craft a request that didnt include the word
value. Did that do the trick? Android as in 25 valued, value or valuation?
Ed Bayley
No. This one is still problematic. Were not going to be able to compromise on this one.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. Can you tell me if youre producing non-custodial documents on Android

valuations?
Ed Bayley
Uhm, no well, are you talking about a response to the RFPs you identified?
Rob Uriarte
Yes.
Ed Bayley
With respect to the RFPs weve identified, we are producing those each of those RFPs
are being produced on a custodial basis.
Rob Uriarte
Okay.
Ed Bayley
Or, at least my notes here arent the notes here identify the ones that we it only works
the other way around. It only identifies ones that were only producing on a non-custodial
basis. Its possible we may be doing additional custodial collections for some of these but
I cant tell. But certainly, were doing search terms for each of these.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. All right, next term Oracle or Java within 20 harm or harms see that term?
7
SPEAKER
TEXT
Ed Bayley
Yeah. So this is another one where wed be willing to compromise. We can come to an
agreement.
Rob Uriarte
Cool. Next up, is the one thats Android and market share or sales, etc.
Ed Bayley
This is one we are wed be willing to compromise if we can come to an agreement.
Rob Uriarte
Cool. Next term, Android and competes and iOS or Windows or Java.
Ed Bayley
This one is still problematic.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. Next, Java class library or Java application, etc.
Ed Bayley
This one wed be willing to compromise on if we can come to an agreement.
Rob Uriarte
Great. The following term is similar.
Ed Bayley
Yeah, its the same answer. Wed be willing to compromise if we can come to an
agreement.
Rob Uriarte
That takes us to Android within 10 of 4 for fragmentation or fragments.
Ed Bayley
Yeah thats still problematic. The fragment issue theres its all crap.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. Next, Android within 20, Java within 20.
Ed Bayley
This is another one where depending on the timing, wed be you know because of the
numbers on here, wed be willing to compromise.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. Next term, infringe or intellectual property or IT within 30.
Ed Bayley
Again, depending on the timing for production after December 16, we would be willing to
compromise on this term.
Rob Uriarte
Cool. Next term, unlicensed within 20, use.
Ed Bayley
This is one wed be willing to compromise on if we can come to an agreement.
Rob Uriarte
Great. Unauthorized use or infringed within 10 copyright.
Ed Bayley
So, I think this one you havent offered any additional terms, and I think our position still
stands on this one. Were not going to change from our last position.
Rob Uriarte
Okay.
8
SPEAKER
TEXT
Ed Bayley
But, Im happy to discuss any of the RFPs if you want to discuss those.
Rob Uriarte
Uh what, I guess, yeah, my question would be what are you producing by way of
custodial documents on this?
Ed Bayley
Okay, so for let me just walk through them. So youve identified 4 RFPs here for 271.
Were producing documents in response to 19 Android and ((API or application or
programming interface, within 50 of copyright. For 262 were producing response to 16,
Android within 10 of 4 for fragmentation. Thats the same for 263. 277 is were
producing custodial documents _____________ term 24, authorized use or infringe within
10 of copyright and value, etc.
Rob Uriarte
Ed Bayley
Okay. Next term.

Next term, again, you know, you havent offered any new term. Were not inclined to
change our terms. In response to the RFPs, youve identified 266, which we are
producing custodial documents in response to 18 uh term 18, Oracle and infringe or
copyright or license or acquired. And obviously some of these are going to change you
know depending on whatever agreement we come to. 280 uh RFP 280, were
producing documents in response to term 25, Android and Java or Oracle within 10 of
lawsuit.
Rob Uriarte
I think were good on this one.
Ed Bayley
Okay. Then theres a couple more that were doing on a non-custodial basis.
Rob Uriarte
Okay I think were good there. Um, for the next one, Android or Java and API or APIs
etc.
Ed Bayley
Sorry Im lost can you give me the number. I got lost. Were at 36?
Rob Uriarte
Um, sorry Im looking at
Ed Bayley
____________ API or APIs or ______________________
Rob Uriarte
Yes.
Ed Bayley
Within 30 of Chrome, Brillo, Archwelder, etc.?
Male voice
Yep.
Ed Bayley
So this ones still problematic. Were not going to be willing to compromise on that one.
Do you want me to walk through the RFPs?
Male voice
Yeah, just if you just know what non-custodial documents youre producing on those,
9
SPEAKER
TEXT
that would be ______________.
Ed Bayley
So for 219 were producing on a non-custodial basis, these are, you know, ____________
documents, I believe, I know that one by heart by now. 224 is, were actually producing
on a custodial basis, thats search term 3, Android within 10 of advertise and ROI or
return on investment. 232, were producing on a non-custodial basis. 237 were
producing on a non-custodial basis subject to our objections re scope. And then, same for
244. 246 were producing on a custodial basis in response to search term 7, Android
within 10 of ad or ads or advert and grow or increase. 251 again, producing on a noncustodial basis subject to scope objections on scope, and then 252, I dont believe we
have an agreement on that. 256, well produce on a custodial basis, search term 10,
Android and market share or sales within 10 of mobile within in 5 search or advert or ad
or ads or device. And 258 were directing to public sources.
Rob Uriarte
Okay.
Womans voice
Sorry, can you repeat 219?
Ed Bayley
219 were producing on a non-custodial basis. Were collecting and producing

__________________ documents.
Womans voice
Subject to any limitation?
Ed Bayley
Uh, subject to limitations in our objections. Uh, this one is kind of fluid because theres a
portal __________, so we have, you know, were producing a lot more subject to that
order on the executive presentation when they would be in our responses-subject to
whats in our responses and the courts order were producing documents on a noncustodial basis in response to ____________________.
Womans voice
Okay.
Male voice
Okay so the next one is archwelder or Android run time for Chrome, etc. and Java or
Android or Chrome.
Ed Bayley
Uh, yes. So were not you havent offered any new terms were not agreeing to accept
on this call that the new term for the RFPs youve identified we are uh 19 covered
224. We are producing on a custodial basis in response to term 3. Android with intended
advertising and ROI or return on investment. 232 were producing on a non-custodial
basis. 237 non-custodial basis subject to objections. 244 again, that one I think were
we have objections on that one of scope as to non-mobile. Uh, Im not sure how that
affects the archwelder of these other ones but, 246 were producing on a custodial basis in
response to search term 7, which is Android within 10 of ad or ads or advert in
____________ or increase within 25 variables or IOT or internet ___________ or
auto________. 251 were collecting on a custodial basis. 252, I dont think we have an
agreement on that one. 256, were producing in response to search term 10 which is
10
SPEAKER
TEXT
Android and market share or sales within 10 of mobile within 5 or search or advert or ad
or ads or device. And then 268, public sources.
Rob Uriarte
Am I correct that this term is only bringing back 614 documents?
Ed Bayley
Uh, thats right. So, uh, again, its the (???Desk 5000 patch term??) so, again, this might
be one that if _______________ entirely is subject to timing. We may be able to
compromise on this one, but were not willing to do so unless its something thats going
to be final/final. I mean, we still think its duplicative of, you know, some of these other
terms that you have that all relate to the RFPs weve identified. But, given the head
count, depending whether or not we can come to a final agreement, maybe to come to
some kind of compromise, but were not going to add it to our existing compromise that
were doing right now.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. Cool, thanks. Next term is Android within 10 of desktop or laptop.
Ed Bayley
Yeah, I think this term is still problematic. We also Ill just say its still problematic.
Rob Uriarte
But I think if I understand our discussions, I think that you are producing non-custodial
documents that will talk about Android strategies for the desktop and laptop.
Ed Bayley
Uh, were certainly producing non-custodial documents that talk about current products
and plans. I dont know I cant I dont know if we have any agreements to product on
a non-custodial basis about future product plans. I think that was an open meet and confer
issue that never got resolved. As my understanding.
Rob Uriarte
So what do you mean by future because as I understand it, like, this work is already
underway and theres already press and public statements by Google about whats going
on, so in our view, thats not really a future product, thats something thats currently in
development and parts of it are already ____________________, as I understand.
Ed Bayley
Wow, if its a released product, then certainly that would fall into something that would
be collected. If its solely related to, you know, something thats being planned out in the
future that hasnt been released yet, um, were not as far as I know collecting and
producing those non-custodial documents on that level.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. Um, next term is Skyhook or Sky Wireless.
Ed Bayley
Yeah, were not producing this one. I still have the relevant objections
___________________ hasnt really satisfied me that any of these terms are relevant. It
clearly hasnt satisfied me as to anything regarding Skyhook or Sky Wireless and Sky
____ is also that document does not establish to me that these documents are responsive
to any of your RFPs. So I can you know, I can tell you that 219 were producing on a
non-custodial basis and for 224 we are producing custodially in response to search term 3,
11
SPEAKER
TEXT
Android with intent of advertise and ROI or return on investment, etc.
Rob Uriarte
So, I guess, um, setting aside the Sky Hook pieces weve seen documents that were
produced last time discussing the Sky team as it relates to Android so Im just trying to
understand what the basis is for not producing them this time.
Ed Bayley
Well, I guess I dont I dont know what the relevance of Sky Team is to the remaining
issues in this case.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. So we already talked about uh, Android within 25 of Vodaphone. The next term
would be Core within 10 of code or libraries or APIs etc.
Ed Bayley
Yes. So uh, were the term is still problematic. I still have issue with the relevancy of
the stage of the case in where we are uh we are producing on a custodial basis uh in
response to the each of the RFPs weve listed here for 290, were producing on a custodial
basis using the term 28, Java or Java cross-libraries, within 50 of alternative or substitutes.
For 291, were producing response to term 29, Android and third within 3 of party and 3
of development and _____________. For 223 were producing in response to term 2,
Android and __________sure or yadda yadda yadda. 264 and 265 were producing in
addition from outside custodial sources from in response to term 17, Android within 10 of
Java within ________ of compatible or incompatible or developer or developers
Rob Uriarte
So is this term bringing back a lot of noise is that or a big volume of hits or
something?
Ed Bayley
Yes. Its a big volume of hits with a lot of noise. Um, in terms of things that are actually
responsive to the RFPs youve identified.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. So I think that takes us down to the term that starts with Android or Java and
developer.
Ed Bayley
Yes, so you havent called for new terms so Im just going to respond to the RFP points.
220, were producing subject to our objections on a non-custodial basis. 223 we are
producing documents on a custodial basis hold on sorry in addition to pointing you
to public sources, were collecting on a non-custodial basis in response to term 2. Thats
the Android and brochure. Were also in response to RFP 226, were producing in
response to term 4, Android and all the package names within 10 of success or impact or
recognition or familiar. 265 we are pointing you to our developer site, and were also
producing on a custodial basis based on term 17, Android within 10 of Java within 10 of
compatible or incompatible or developer or developers. 280 we are producing on a
custodial basis in response to term 25, Android and Java or Oracle within 10 of lawsuit or
litigation or sue. In 290, were producing on a custodial basis in response to term 28, Java
or Java cross-libraries etc within 50 of alternative or substitute. And 291 were producing
on a custodial basis in response to term 29, Android and third within part 3 of party within
3 of _______________ and success.
12
SPEAKER
TEXT
Rob Uriarte
Okay. So the next term I think we just need to confirm that youre producing noncustodial presentations on this stuff. This is the term that starts studies, or study of
presentation, etc. within 25 of Android or mobile or IOT.
Ed Bayley
Yes.
Rob Uriarte
Okay.
Ed Bayley
I mean, were collecting response to RFP 219 strategy high-level strategy presentations
in response to that RFP. I dont know if you have an RFP identified for that one, but if
thats what youre referring to, yes, thats what were doing.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. That takes us to the term that starts Android or mobile or wear or autos etc within
30 market share.
Ed Bayley
Uh, yes. So, you havent offered a new term so Im just going to run through the RFPs.
215 and 219 were producing on a non-custodial basis. 244 as well, subject to our
objections on the mobile. 255 uh, we are producing on a custodial basis in response to
term 9, thats Oracle or Java within 10 of harm, harmed, or harming, and Android.
Rob Uriarte
How is that um, I mean I can see how that would capture some responsive documents, but
this is fundamentally about Androids market share so-just are you limiting what youre
producing on this stuff to documents that actually mention Oracle or Java?
Ed Bayley
Well, I guess, my question for you is, is there an RFP that you are saying is directed for
custodial documents relating to market share for these products? And if so, I can look and
I can give you a more targeted response as to what were doing.
Rob Uriarte
Okay, I mean, our RFPs arent dont delineate between custodial or non-custodial.
Ed Bayley
Sure sure - So I guess then, setting aside the custodial/non-custodial point, do you have an
RFP in mind that you believe captures outside of high level strategy documents which
were producing, uh, you know documents relating to market share, like generally?
Rob Uriarte
Yeah, for sure. Im just going to mark a note for this one. Okay, let me, Ill follow up
with you on that one. And by the way, I anticipate getting a response to you this evening.
And then if need be, the joint letter shortly thereafter. So, but, I wanted to take a little bit
of time to circle up with my team and make sure that cause it seems like were actually
pretty close here. I appreciate this effort and I think we might be able to work something
out. Im hopeful that we can, so lets just press on. We just have a couple left here.
Ed Bayley
Okay, Ill wait for my final comments until we get through the rest. So we are now at-
Rob Uriarte
Oracle or Sun or Java within 30, license or fair use or board.

13
SPEAKER
TEXT
Ed Bayley
Yeah, so, you havent offered new terms here so Im just going to go straight to the RFPs.
Uh, 284, were producing on non-custodial basis. 288 we are producing on a custodial
basis in response to term 18, Oracle and infringe or copyright or license or expire within
10 of Java. 290, that is RFP 290, were producing custodially in response to term 28, Java
or Java plus libraries, etc. within 50 of alterative or substitute. 292 were producing on a
custodial basis in response to term 17, _______________ within 10 of Java within 10 of
compatible or incompatible, etc.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. Um, Next, unauthorized or without or not etc and Android or Java.
Ed Bayley
Yep. So, again, no new terms so Ill just walk through the RFPs
Rob Uriarte
Can I just ask so it seems like your position is that if we didnt tweak a term, that youre
just taking a blanket stand that youre not going to run it, regardless of how many
documents its bringing back.
Ed Bayley
Well, we have
Rob Uriarte
You know, I mean, look, I dont want to derail this, I think were making good progress
here, but Im just I dont understand that. Especially for something thats bringing back,
you know, 30,000 documents, not a ton. So,
Ed Bayley
Well, you know, we had a call last week and you know, we had issues beyond just
numbers of documents for some of these. Um, you know, this one is its so producing
given what weve looked at and this is especially one where weve offered another term
thats much more targeted and much more successful in getting responsive hits. You
know, were not willing to just fix up 30,000 documents because 30,000 documents
(unintelligible) disagree. Im willing to compromise in order to get us to the end, but Im
only willing to go so far and I think I told you how far were willing to go. As far as Im
concerned, weve already talked about this term for hits and we havent been able to
figure out anything that we can come to a compromise on. We thought we were at a final
______________ on that and then you came back with additional terms which we had to
consider. We didnt go through and consider all the ones weve already not agreed to and
were going to stand on them. Depending on what you may come back with tomorrow,
again, this is the first time I thought this was going to be the final call, but now it sounds
like you need to go back to your team. If you want me to go back to my team, and inquire
about this one, I can, but Im not I dont think its proper
Rob Uriarte
I get it, and I know were running out of time but so heres my concern. This is I think
reasonable minds can look at both of the terms we propose and see that theyre both
relevant to issues in the case. Im just concerned when I see your term only bringing back
251 documents, and I think that is not a deduced number. Correct me if Im wrong. Less
than 250 documents on a topic that says, unauthorized use of Android or Java seems like
something is amiss. But maybe if you can give me some confidence that were going to
14
SPEAKER
TEXT
get materials discussing unauthorized use of Android or Java
Ed Bayley
I need the problem is that you have your term it isnt limited to unauthorized use of
Android and Java. You have a term where those words unauthorized and the words
Android appear somewhere in the documents. And what Im telling you is, our term,
which actually does go toward capturing what youre looking for which is documents that
actually relate to discussions of authorized or unauthorized uses of Java are captured by
our terms. Your terms do not successfully capture those documents. It captures a large
swathe of non-responsive documents and certainly when compared to the RFPs the
search term you proposed in our view does not adequately capture that. And Im not
trying to be difficult here, its just I mean weve got to draw the line somewhere.
Rob Uriarte
Yeah I know
Ed Bayley
Weve done our best on this one.
Rob Uriarte
I would propose, I guess, to just increase the proximity, like the within 10, to increase that
by some amount. You guys know better than we do what hits are coming back but I dont
want this to be a hang up, so, I understand your position on it. I think we can go to the
next term. And this is the one that starts off with _______________
Ed Bayley
Yeah, so again, we think our term is more than adequate for what weve proposed. In
terms of the RFPs, I dont know if we discussed the RFPs for the last term. Do you want
to or do you want to move on?
Rob Uriarte
It looks like theres substantial overlap so why dont you just run through the terms on
this one.
Ed Bayley
Okay. Yeah, I think they are overlapped. So for 271, Im just going to do this quickly, on
a custodial basis were doing term 19, thats Android and API or application program
names, within 50 of copyright. RPF 266s responsive to term 18, 259 is in response to
term 13. 262 and 263 is in response to term 16, thats the Android ______________ with
fragmentation. 276 is in response to term 23. And 222 is in response to term 1. And by
term 1 I mean the closed __________, thats the strategy or model and Android within 5
of closed ___________(unintelligible). And then 289 is in response to term 27. 290 is
term 28.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. The next is the legal balance of that list _____ CPO domain.
Ed Bayley
Yeah. And I mean this is I can walk through all these RFP letters again but I think our
main objection here is a relevance objection. These are third party conversations on, uh,
listserve that some Googlers and some Oracle posted a number of and so, just to walk
through the numbers. RFP 271 is response to term 19. RPF 266 is term 18. RFP 259 is
term 13. RFP 262 and 263 is term 16. RFP 276 is term 23. And 222 is term 1.
15
SPEAKER
Rob Uriarte
TEXT
And are those terms capturing emails from this domain?
Ed Bayley
Uh, are you asking me if weve used this domain as a custodian? Or
Rob Uriarte
Uh, sorry, Im just asking Im trying to figure out, is this really worth fighting over
because you just told me some other terms that youve run that you think respond to these
RFPs and so Im just trying to are those terms youve just recited, are they capturing
documents from this with this email domain in it?
Ed Bayley
Uh, I can tell you, I didnt look at the documents, but there are some emails from this
domain captured within the production. Whether theyre captured by these terms, I have
no idea. These terms are directed at RFPs not any strict search term that youre
proposing. Im not saying Im refusing to produce documents that have these domains,
but it has to be responsive and were not going to agree to a term thats just directed at
this domain.
Rob Uriarte
Okay, what if we added in a modifier that was and Android or Java?
Steve or Ed (cant
tell)
The problem is, again, we need to get the closure on this and not keep testing and testing
and running things and running things. In __________________ we explained why
____________ is unreasonable, and either you stand on it being reasonable or not, and we
move on.
Rob Uriarte
Yeah but Im just trying to limit it I dont think you need to do any additional testing.
Its only bringing back 1800 documents, and thats not de-duped, so if we added a
modifier, then in all likelihood that will drop it below 1000 documents. That seems like
something that, you know, if we agree to everything else, this shouldnt be a hang-up.
Ed Bayley or Steve
But then thats just playing the hit count game which, I mean, something could return 10
documents and still not be a good term because those 10 documents are not relevant.
Rob Uriarte
Right but we would hate to but we wouldnt want to go to court on a motion to compel
over 10 documents. It would just make sense for everyone to just produce them. I get it, I
mean, Id propose an additional compromise. If your answers are not willing to consider
it, thats fine, we can move on.
Ed Bayley
Sorry, I do need to hurry on this stuff because theyre gonna four secretaries having to
stay here to work late, also.
Rob Uriarte
I think were there. Last two terms, um, this is another one where we didnt propose a
new term but its only bringing back 686 documents so I would hope that we could just
compromise on it and put this one to bed.
Ed Bayley
I mean, Im not for the same reason as before. This term doesnt have any, you know, as
far as I can tell, any of the RFPs youve identified.
16
SPEAKER
TEXT
Rob Uriarte
What if we add um an and Android or Java modifier to this term? Your proposal is and
Android, what if we just add Java to that?
Ed Bayley
Um, if you want to throw that into the proposal you send back, well certainly consider it.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. And then last one is specification or sets within 20 license, etc. And if you recall, I
thought we were close to a deal on this one before, and we proposed to add and Android
or Java and you said you thought that might be the trick and youd go back to your team
about it.
Ed Bayley
Yeah and I think for this one, this is one where uh, subject to I mean, Im having a lot of
trouble seeing the relevance of this one. Honestly, the RFPs youve identified dont
appear to relate to specification and Im not exactly sure what youre getting at with the
specification how that aligns with your RFPs. Can you tell me on this call? Which of
these RFPs do you believe line up with specifications and why?
Rob Uriarte
Specification license and violate or enforce or sue and Android or Java. So an email
talking about whether the license to use the specification and whether that would be a
violation. I mean, this is pretty straightforward, I think.
Ed Bayley
Well, I guess before I can agree to this I need to know if we go and collect these
documents or review them, what am I reviewing them for? What is are you just talking
about is all youre looking for is a discussion of the Java specification license as it
relates to Android within Google? I mean, Im not sure if youve requested that in any of
your RFPs, but I wanted to know what it is that you think is the relevant category of
documents.
Rob Uriarte
I think thats the core of it. The core of it is specifications talking about the
specifications license and violations or lawsuits or Android or Java in that context. Yeah,
I think thats right.
Ed Bayley
Okay. Well, Ill put that down as a category. If you want to propose it as part of
whatever final compromise, well consider it, but, Im not sitting here today, Im not
inclined to unless ________________________ to get a deal done.
Rob Uriarte
Okay. So I think where were at, I think were actually pretty close. We will get back to
you tonight on whether we can forego so theres a set of requests where youve said that
you will not run them and that theres not room for compromise on them. So I think, I
just have to make sure that were okay accepting that position. And then if youll agree to
run the rest, then I think were well be able to get to a deal. I just need a couple hours
to internalize this and then well get back to you tonight.
Ed Bayley
Okay, and just so were clear. You understand that, you know, in order to run and
produce these additional terms, were looking at a production after the close of fact
17
SPEAKER
TEXT
discovery?
Rob Uriarte
Steve
Yes.
And that if were going to agree to do that as part of the agreement, it would have to be
that you couldnt use that after the fact discovery production as any basis to reopen any
depositions.
Rob Uriarte
Okay, let me take that I mean, I think that makes sense but I need to confirm. I mean, if
theres something that should have been produced before a deposition and it wasnt, then
thats the problem I see.
Steve
Well, again, - any good lawyer can make an argument that any document should have
been produced before deposition. So that sort of the problem. We cant make an
agreement, you know, late date, now we have less than a week before the close of fact
discovery, and then have that lead to a prejudice to us because its ___________ perhaps
extending it so far __________________ close of fact discovery is a convenient to reopen
deposition, so that has
Rob Uriarte
Thats not our yeah, we dont thats not what we envision happening here. But on the
other hand, good cause is good cause if we need to move for relief under the scheduling
order and the same goes for you all. I get it, I get your position. I understand the
apprehension and I can assure you that thats not our intent. But I need to talk to my team
about that.
Ed Bayley
Steve
Okay
And now, I think this can be a very brief comment, but, at 4:42, 18 minutes before the call
started, you sent over a list of I havent been able to read it all but it looks like more
than a dozen RFPs on which you want to meet and confer and say youre going to move
to compel if we cant reach a compromise. I mean, we havent even had a meet and
confer on it and we obviously arent going to do that right now on things you just raised
for the first time barely an hour ago.
Rob Uriarte
Yeah so I dont think youve been involved in some of these calls, but all with the
exception of a handful, all of the RFPs listed in my email are RFPs that weve previously
met and conferred on. And, I think the only the one other thing that we needed to
address on this call was just the separate and aside from the ESI issue that weve just
discussed its your position that you will not produce any documents custodial or
otherwise dealing with what youre referring to as future products or projections then
that is something that were keyed up for a motion on now. Because we talked about that
before we were assigned to Judge review and she has this requirement of having to file
within five days of a meet and confer so, on the issue of future products, I think we
understand your final position is that youre not producing any documents, and I think
that keys up a motion now.
Steve
I dont know (unintelligible) accurate. But I mean (voices talking at once) You, you
18
SPEAKER
TEXT
have more background so why dont you go.
Ed Bayley
Sure, I was just going to say, you know, that the problem from Steve and my perspective
is that we are not necessarily we had set up a call to talk about search terms and
obviously were prepared to do that. We havent we werent able to get Beth or Sarah on
the line who I know were the people involved in negotiating these objections on the RFPs.
And again, it wasnt until 8 minutes before the phone call that there were these additional
objections that you wanted to take action on so were just not in a position today. I mean,
we can certainly reach out to Beth and get something set up for tomorrow or whenever
shes available to do that. But were just not in a position here today to talk about these
things. I know there was discussion about pre2011 documents that was going on recently
but it sounds like youre objections on these RFPs are much broader than that. And so if
thats the case then we need to have a more full discussion with the people who are
involved to make sure that were all on the same page as __________________. Because
its not clear to me
Rob Uriarte
Yeah and just to clear up and I can see how it would be confusing but first off, yeah,
lets try and set up a call for tomorrow on this stuff but what we the reason I sent you
these lists of RFPs is that in the event we need to move to compel on the ESI issue, the
basis for that motion will be these RFPs.
Ed Bayley
I see, okay. Well, you know
Steve
That doesnt make I dont understand that. Because
Ed Bayley
Yeah, Im -That doesnt I mean the (2-3 voices talking at once, unintelligible) it doesnt seem to
me, and Im aware of the pre-June 2011 discussions, which I understand that hasnt yet
been closed out, thats still being discussed as to my understanding, but Im not aware of
any meet and confer as to the agreements to produce or limitations on the scope of
production in response to RFPs Im not aware of any meet and confer on that in my
mind it was raised the first time today and (background noise, unintelligible).
Steve
Rob Uriarte
So what I guess that Im saying is that, for example, email communications and
documents (background noise on phone line, unintelligible) use of Java, Android, Brillo,
Archweller etc. If you wont agree to run the terms that we think are required to bring
those documents back, then well file a motion to compel production of documents
responsive to the applicable RFPs. (background noise, fade out). There are a couple in
here at the top of the chart that have to do with other issues so we can set up a call for that
tomorrow. But (background noise, unintelligible) that we will file a motion to compel
production of documents and (background noise, unintelligible) whatever ESI dispute
there is and whatever RFPs _____________ remaining.
Steve
I think that would be improper because throughout all of these discussions weve talked
about terms were running as far as (background noise, unintelligible)
19
SPEAKER
Rob or Ed (cant
tell)
Steve
Ed Bayley
TEXT
(background noise, unintelligible)
Are you walking Ed or somebody? Were getting a lot of
Yeah, thats me, sorry. Im going to see if I can I had to leave.
Steve
No worries.
Rob Uriarte
So anyways, Steve, I didnt catch everything you were saying but
Steve
What I was saying was that, you know, throughout our discussions on the ESI issue,
weve emphasized that all of this, and the agreements around terms, is all subject to our
objections to the RFPs and thats never led to any attempt by Oracle to discuss the
substance of our objections or anything like that. And so, that discussion, I mean, I think
we need to have that discussion before theres any motion to compel based on the
objections of the RFPs because we have not had that conversation. You all havent
attempted to have that conversation until, to my knowledge, until today. And were
happy to have it, but I just want to be clear that if theres am option to compel based on
objection to RFPs separate from the search terms which we emphasized were subject to
our objections, then I think thats not proper. We need to have a discussion.
Rob Uriarte
Yeah, and just to be clear, we have discussed most of these RFPs in the past and you
werent involved in those conversations but anyways wed be happy to do it again. Lets
try and set something up for tomorrow. And hopefully well have to talk about tomorrow
a few straggler RFPs so we can get to a deal on the ESI stuff.
Steve
All right, so, as far as, yeah, Im not sure schedule-wise so I think that probably Beth or
Sarah will get back to you on this request for the RFP discussion. And well just monitor
email as best we can.
Rob Uriarte
Steve
Cool. All right, I think thats it.

All right.
Rob Uriarte
Steve
All right thanks.

Thanks, bye.
Ed Bayley
Thanks guys. Bye.
20

16-08-25 Google Attorney Declaration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

16-08-25 Google Attorney Declaration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 20

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA

August 17, 2016

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 20

I, Christa M. Anderson, declare as follows:

I submit this declaration in response to the Courts Order re Follow-up from

witnesses during the discovery period, in paragraphs five through forty-seven.

period, including Googles discovery responses, the parties meet-and-confer correspondence,

laptops that use Chrome OS.

testimony, and other information relevant to the Courts inquiry.

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 20

A. Information made available to Oracle during discovery about Googles plans to

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045 Filed 08/25/16 Page 4 of 20

(https://chrome.googleblog.com/2014/09/first-set-of-android-apps-coming-to.html). A true and

Google provided instructions and documentation on the public Chrome developer

(https://developer.chrome.com/apps/getstarted_arc). A true and correct copy of a webpage

(Zeidman Rep.) at 126 n.7.

Moreover, internal Google documents produced to Oracle during the discovery

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045 Filed 08/25/16 Page 5 of 20

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045 Filed 08/25/16 Page 6 of 20

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045 Filed 08/25/16 Page 7 of 20

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045 Filed 08/25/16 Page 8 of 20

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045 Filed 08/25/16 Page 9 of 20

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045 Filed 08/25/16 Page 10 of 20

(https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/1086915). In order to receive the developer

developer channel version of ARC++ to the public. See Exhibit 17

reference to the M53 release in Googles May 19 announcement). I further understand, on

later this year.

E. Googles Outside Counsels knowledge of ARC and ARC++

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045 Filed 08/25/16 Page 11 of 20

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045 Filed 08/25/16 Page 12 of 20

disclosures.). I further understand that there is no need as a matter of form to submit a

supplemental disclosure to include information already revealed by a witness in a deposition or

My understanding of the duty to supplement is consistent with the parties conduct

responses to written discovery requests in December 2015. Google served supplemental

certain supplemental documents leading up through trial.

Requests for Production of Documents (RFPs)

RFP No. 324, which requested:

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045 Filed 08/25/16 Page 13 of 20

Source code and DOCUMENTATION for all GOOGLE software

copy of Googles objections is attached as Exhibit 17A.

up correspondence from Oracle on this issue.

documents regarding ARC++ were available to Oracle. Supra, 15-19.

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045 Filed 08/25/16 Page 14 of 20

It is my belief that Google violated no duty to supplement document production in

produce source code for unfinished products. For example:

On November 9, 2015, counsel for Google informed Oracle that RFPs

counsels November 9, 2015 email to Oracle is attached as Exhibit 19.

On December 9, 2015, counsel for Google informed Oracle on a tape-

confer call is attached as Exhibit 20.

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045 Filed 08/25/16 Page 15 of 20

Oracles Interrogatory No. 26, asked:

previously made available to Oracle for inspection. Id.

Oracles Interrogatory No. 27, asked:

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2045 Filed 08/25/16 Page 16 of 20

and incorporated in full its response to Interrogatory No. 26.

Oracles Interrogatory No. 29, asked:

derived, and incorporated in full its response to Interrogatory No. 26.