In re Oracle Corporation Derivative Litigation

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SAM GLASSCOCK III VICE CHANCELLOR COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE 34 THE CIRCLE GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947 May 7, 2020 Joel Friedlander, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq. Christopher P. Quinn, Esq. Bradley P. Lehman, Esq. FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A. 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Thomas A. Beck, Esq. Blake Rohrbacher, Esq. Susan M. Hannigan, Esq. Matthew D. Perri, Esq. Daniel E. Kaprow, Esq. RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER P.A. One Rodney Square 920 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 A. Thompson Bayliss, Esq. E. Wade Houston, Esq. ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19807 Andrew S. Dupre, Esq. MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP 405 N. King Street, 8th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 RE: In re Oracle Corporation Derivative Litigation C.A. No.: 2017-0337-SG Dear Counsel: I have reviewed the briefing concerning the NetSuite Defendants’ request for a stay of discovery, pending resolution of their Motions to Dismiss, currently under consideration. In the exercise of my discretion, and in light of the state of the litigation as well as the pendency of the Motions to Dismiss, the Motion to Stay is denied. It is appropriate that discovery go forward in this long-pending matter, and I note that the NetSuite Defendants will be key witnesses in the Lead Plaintiff’s case regardless of the outcome of the Motions to Dismiss. In the interest of efficiency and fairness, however, discovery of the NetSuite Defendants shall be limited to that appropriate toward non-parties to the action, as though the Motions to Dismiss had been granted. The parties should confer and agree on how to proceed most efficiently in light of this discovery limitation. To the extent they cannot agree, the parties may proceed through motions to compel/for a protective order, consistent with my decision here. Far preferable, however, would be an agreement of the parties as to the breadth of discovery appropriate during the pendency of the Motions to Dismiss. To the extent the foregoing requires an order to take effect, IT IS SO ORDERED. Sincerely, /s/ Sam Glasscock III Sam Glasscock III 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.