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

Background

The parties asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute concerning Procore’s compliance with the court’s May 29, 2025, discovery order. The dispute involved documents connected to Oracle and information that Mariano allegedly took with him or that Procore might have accessed. Oracle also sought access to Mariano’s iCloud drive, iPhone 14 Plus, Apple Mac Mini, and Google drive, as well as a list of all devices Procore had imaged.

Oracle argued that Procore had not adequately explained which Oracle-related documents it withheld based on relevance. Procore responded that it had made good-faith efforts to define the scope of discovery, that Oracle’s demand for “Oracle files” was overbroad, and that it would produce relevant and responsive Oracle-branded and Oracle-originated documents and Oracle trade secrets while excluding materials it considered clearly unrelated to the misappropriation claims.

Procore also argued that the devices and drives were Mariano’s personal property and that only Mariano could consent to discovery. Procore said a third-party vendor had obtained images with Mariano’s consent, but that he needed to consent again. The opinion states that Mariano had not objected to the discovery request and had not objected to the third-party vendor’s examination under the forensic protocol at the time of the order.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), parties may obtain discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court considered relevance, proportionality, burden, and privacy concerns. Under Rule 34, documents are within a party’s custody or control when the party possesses them or has the legal right to obtain them on demand, including work-related information on an employee’s personal devices.

Court’s analysis

The court said the litigation concerned what Mariano took and whether Procore accessed or used that information. It concluded that Procore’s discovery plan appeared to address responsive information across devices and storage within its control and had to be implemented.

The court found that Procore had not explained why it withheld Oracle documents beyond labeling them nonresponsive and had not described the withheld categories. Procore had also not raised burden or proportionality objections. The court therefore ordered Procore to produce at least the categories of documents it had identified and withheld. Procore could raise burden or proportionality objections, but absent such objections, it had to produce the identified documents. The court noted that the dispute might benefit from further production and possibly a custodial deposition, and that timing issues could be raised later.

For the devices and drives, the court found that they contained relevant information and that the information was relevant, responsive, and not unduly burdensome. It held that privacy concerns were mitigated by targeted searches and the third-party forensic protocol. The court also rejected Procore’s position that it could withhold information merely because Mariano might have been able to do so, noting the opinion’s discussion of Oracle’s contention that Procore’s employment handbook allowed access to company-related data on employees’ personal devices.

Disposition

The court ordered Procore to produce the identified withheld document categories unless it raised burden or proportionality objections. It further ordered Procore to produce a list of the devices and drives it had imaged and permitted the third-party forensic examiner to review them under the parties’ forensic protocol. Mariano was given seven days to object by letter brief, after which the parties could confer about any objections. The court stated, “This resolves ECF No. 127.” The order addressed discovery only and did not decide the underlying misappropriation claims.