Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-VCF |
| Parties | ORACLE USA, INC.; a Colorado corporations; ORACLE AMERICA, INC.; a Delaware corporation; and ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a California corporation, Plaintiffs, v. RIMINI STREET, INC., a Nevada corporation; and SETH RAVIN, an individual, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
Before the Court are several pending motions. Rimini Street, Inc. and Seth Ravin (collectively "Rimini") move this Court for (1) an order enforcing the Court's orders and judgment separating the instant action1 from Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle International Corp., Case No. 2:14-cv-01699-LRH-DJA (ECF Nos. 1323); (2) an order excluding the declaration and opinions of Oracle's expert, Barbara Frederiksen-Cross (ECF Nos. 1390, 1392-s);2 and (3) a jurytrial (ECF No. 1387, 1389-s). Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle America, Inc., and Oracle International Corporation (collectively "Oracle") moves this Court for an order to show cause why Rimini should not be held in contempt for violating the permanent injunction operable in this case (ECF Nos. 1365, 1368-s) and for Rule 11 sanctions (ECF No. 1348). Oracle also moves this Court for Rule 37(e) sanctions against defendants (ECF Nos. 1359). This issue was referred to Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach, who issued a Report and Recommendation to deny Oracle's motion for sanctions (ECF No. 1431). Accordingly, Oracle objected (ECF No. 1434). Finally, due to the sensitive nature of the information contained within the briefing and exhibits, the parties move to seal numerous documents. ECF Nos. 1325, 1334, 1367, 1384, 1388, 1391, 1394, 1404, 1408, 1413, 1417, 1427, 1435, 1439. The parties have properly responded and replied to all pending motions, and each is ripe for review. For the reasons contained within this Order, the Court grants in part and denies in part the parties' substantive motions and grants the parties' motions to seal nunc pro tunc.
This action has an extensive 11-year history that includes two causes of action. In brief, and relevant to the pending motions, Oracle develops, manufactures, and licenses computer software, particularly Enterprise Software Programs. Oracle also provides after-license software support services to customers who license its copyrighted software. Rimini is a company that provides similar after-license software support services to customers licensing Oracle's copyrighted software and competes directly to provide those services. Seth Ravin is the owner and CEO of Rimini.
Oracle first sued Rimini in 2010, alleging that Rimini infringed several of Oracle's copyrights when it, inter alia, used work that it completed for one client for the benefit of other clients, which Oracle claimed was a violation of its software copyrights. Following the filing of dispositive motions, the Court granted summary judgment to Oracle on some of its copyright infringement claims. Of importance to these proceedings was the Court's finding that Rimini violated the "facilities restriction" within PeopleSoft's standard licensing agreement when ithosted its clients' development environments on its own computer systems, a process called "local hosting." ECF No. 474; Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc., 6 F.Supp.3d 1086, 1096-98 (D. Nev. 2014). The Court further held that Rimini was infringing on Oracle's copyrights for Oracle Database when it downloaded many copies of the software off Oracle's network and failed to adhere to the Developer License. ECF No. 476; Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc., 6 F.Supp.3d 1108, 1115-20 (D. Nev. 2014). Later, after a month-long trial, a jury found in favor of Oracle on other copyright infringement claims related to Oracle's J.D. Edwards and Siebel software.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed both this Court's grant of summary judgment and all of the jury's verdict on infringement violations under the Copyright Act, only reversing regarding violations of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA") and the Nevada Computer Crimes Law ("NCCL").3 Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc., 879 F.3d 948, 962 (9th Cir. 2018). Given its rulings, the Ninth Circuit vacated this Court's issuance of a permanent injunction and remanded to the Court to determine whether it would again issue a permanent injunction based solely on Rimini's copyright infringement and without reference to the reversed state law computer claims. Id. at 964.4
On August 14, 2018, this Court granted Oracle's renewed motion for a permanent injunction, which enjoins Rimini from continuing to infringe on Oracle's copyrighted software. ECF No. 1164; Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc., 324 F.Supp.3d 1157 (D. Nev. 2018). In relevant part, the injunction provides:
PeopleSoft
J.D. Edwards
Oracle Database
15. Rimini Street shall not reproduce, prepare derivative works from, or distribute Oracle Database software.
ECF No. 1166 ().
/// In granting the permanent injunction, the Court noted that the balance of the hardships weighed in favor of its issuance because Oracle was only seeking to enjoin acts that had already been determined to be unlawful and that had been affirmed on appeal. ECF No. 1164 at 9. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this permanent injunction, except instructing the Court to strike paragraphs nine and thirteen, and the words "or access" in paragraphs eight and twelve. ECF No. 1236; Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc., 783 Fed.Appx.707, 710-11 (9th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) ( ).5
On April 4, 2019, the Court granted Oracle's motion to reopen discovery to determine if Rimini has been complying with the permanent injunction. ECF Nos. 1199; 1215; 1218. The parties engaged in discovery for approximately a year and a half. ECF No. 1354. Following close of discovery, the parties filed the six now pending substantive motions.
In October 2014, Rimini filed a separate complaint against Oracle for declaratory judgment. Rimini II, ECF No. 1. This complaint stemmed from the Court's granting of summary judgment to Oracle in Oracle I on the issue of whether Rimini infringed six of Oracle's PeopleSoft and Database copyrights. At the time of filing the second action, Rimini maintained that by July 31, 2014, it had changed its company policies to comply with the Court's February 13, 2014 summary judgment Order, by transitioning to something it dubbed "Process 2.0" support services. Id. at 3. Despite Rimini's assertions that it had ceased infringing on Oracle's copyrights, Oracle was skeptical and counterclaimed, alleging eight causes of action, including copyright infringement, regarding Rimini's new Process 2.0. Rimini II, ECF Nos. 21, 22-s.
After extensive, lengthy, and contentious discovery and motion practice, including the filing of amended complaints by both Oracle and Rimini, the parties filed seven motions for summary judgment, consisting of more than 2,800 pages of briefing and 43,000 pages ofsupporting exhibits, declarations, and appendices. On September 14, 2020, the Court issued its 94-page order granting in part and denying in part these motions. Rimini II, ECF No. 1253; Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle International Corp., 473 F.Supp.3d 1158 (D. Nev. 2020). In relevant part, the Court held that Rimini had infringed four of Oracle's copyrights—PeopleSoft HRMS 8.9 (TX 7-065-381); PeopleTools 8.46.17 (TX 7-092-772); PeopleSoft HRMS 8.3 (TX 5-469-032); and PeopleTools 8.48.10 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial