Oracle America, Inc. v. Procore Technologies, Inc.

Background

Oracle sued Procore Technologies, Inc. and Mark Mariano. Oracle alleges that Mariano, a former Oracle employee, misappropriated Oracle’s trade secrets and disclosed them to Procore, which used the information in Procore Pay, a payment-management service. Oracle asserts claims under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act against Procore and Mariano and a breach-of-contract claim against Mariano.

During discovery, Oracle issued subpoenas to seven nonparty former Oracle customers, described in the opinion as construction companies. The subpoenas sought documents and communications concerning Procore Pay, Oracle and Textura Payment Management, Mariano, payments to Procore, enterprise-resource-planning integrations, contracts, and information allegedly derived from Oracle or Textura. No subpoenaed third party moved to quash, nearly half had produced documents, and the remaining responses were due by July 31, 2025.

Procore moved to quash the subpoenas. It argued that it had standing because the subpoenas burdened its customers, strained its business relationships, and sought its proprietary information. Procore also argued that four of the seven companies were not Procore clients, that Oracle should first seek the information through party discovery, and that the requests did not concern the trade secrets.

Analysis

The court applied Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45 and 26. Those rules generally allow discovery of nonprivileged information that is relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court explained that nonparties should not be burdened to the same extent as litigants and that subpoenas to nonparties should be narrowly tailored.

Standing

The court held that Procore lacked standing to move to quash the third-party subpoenas. Generally, a party cannot challenge a subpoena directed to a third party unless the subpoena implicates the party’s privilege or personal rights.

The court rejected Procore’s argument that it could assert the customers’ possible burden. The subpoenaed customers had not moved to quash or sought a protective order. The court also declined to require Oracle to complete party discovery before pursuing nonparty discovery because Procore’s discovery responses had been inadequate despite court orders, nonparty discovery was nearly complete, and Procore had refused to identify documents it intended to produce.

The court also rejected Procore’s argument that the subpoenas threatened its business relationships. It distinguished a case involving broad, allegedly harassing requests where third parties had objected and duplicative discovery had already been produced. Here, the third parties had not objected, and Procore had not shown duplicative production. The court further concluded that Procore’s interest in avoiding disruption to business relationships was not a personal right or privilege sufficient to create standing.

Procore’s concerns about confidential information, including communications, payments, contracts, and source code, also did not establish standing. The court observed that the subpoenas primarily sought information belonging to the customers and that the existing protective order could protect Procore’s information. Procore had not identified what material would jeopardize its interests or explained why the protective order was inadequate.

Discoverability

The court concluded that the subpoenas sought relevant, discoverable information. Requests concerning Procore Pay targeted the service allegedly benefiting from Oracle’s trade secrets. Other requests sought information about the litigation, communications with Mariano, payments to Procore, integrations of Procore products with enterprise-resource-planning systems, and contracts with Procore. The court found all of these categories relevant to Oracle’s trade-secret-misappropriation claim.

Because the third-party discovery was nearly complete, most requested relief was moot. In the absence of objections based on burden or overbreadth, the court permitted the discovery and directed the parties to confer to ensure appropriate protection under the existing protective order.

Disposition

The court denied Procore’s motion to quash and stated that the order resolved ECF No. 122.