Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 23, 2022

Oracle America, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

Judge
Jon Tigar
Docket
4:16-cv-01393
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
EvidenceCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Oracle America v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Judge Tigar denied HPE’s requests but allowed it to renew its exhibit request at trial.

Who this affects

Hewlett Packard Enterprise, which may renew its request to admit the two exhibits at trial, and the parties and jury involved in the trial.

What happened

Oracle America, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company concerns Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s requests about evidence and jury instructions in the case.

The company asked to admit two trial exhibits and asked the court to give the jury instructions about the statute of limitations and Terix executive guilty pleas. The court found that the request to admit the exhibits did not adequately show that the emails were authentic.

The court denied the exhibit motion without prejudice, meaning Hewlett Packard Enterprise may seek admission of the documents at trial, and denied both requests for advance jury instructions. Judge Tigar issued the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Oracle America, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company · No. 4:16-cv-01393
Judge
Jon Tigar
Date
May 23, 2022

Background

Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) asked the court to admit trial exhibits 2916 and 3574. HPE also asked the court to preinstruct the jury about the statute of limitations and Terix executive guilty pleas.

Exhibits

The court said the documents might qualify for a hearsay exception for statements reflecting a person’s then-existing state of mind, emotion, or intent under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3). But the court found that HPE had not provided enough foundation to show that the documents were authentic. The court explained that the email addresses, names, signature blocks, and transmission dates and times—features common to most emails—were not enough by themselves to establish authenticity.

Ruling

The court denied HPE’s motion to admit exhibits 2916 and 3574 without prejudice. The court stated that HPE could seek to have the documents admitted at trial. The court also denied HPE’s requests to preinstruct the jury about the statute of limitations and the Terix executive guilty pleas. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.