Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc., 2:10-cv-00106

Oracle sued Rimini Street and CEO Seth Ravin for copyright infringement and related claims, alleging Rimini copied Oracle software to provide competing support services.
After a 2015 jury trial, the jury found Rimini liable for copyright infringement and both defendants liable under state computer access statutes, awarding substantial damages to Oracle.
The district court later granted Oracle a permanent injunction, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees; defendants appealed the injunction to the Ninth Circuit and moved to stay the injunction pending appeal (ECF No. 1069).
Defendants filed a reply in support of the stay; Oracle moved to strike portions of that reply (or alternatively sought leave to file a sur-reply) arguing the reply raised new arguments and evidence (ECF No. 1082).
Oracle also moved to seal its motion to strike on the basis that it contained confidential business information governed by the court’s protective order (ECF No. 1083).
The court reviewed the reply and the sealing request and resolved both motions: it granted Oracle leave to file a sur-reply and granted the motion to seal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether portions of defendants’ reply should be struck because they raise new arguments/evidence	Oracle argued the reply introduced new arguments/evidence depriving Oracle the opportunity to respond, warranting striking or allowing a sur-reply	Defendants relied on their reply arguments as responsive to the stay request	Court declined to strike; granted Oracle leave to file a sur-reply (up to 10 pages within 3 days) because the reply contained relevant material the court could consider only if Oracle may respond
Whether Oracle’s motion to strike should be filed under seal	Oracle argued the motion contains information designated Confidential/Highly Confidential under the protective order and presented compelling reasons to seal	Defendants opposed public filing of confidential material (implicit)	Court granted sealing: found materials covered by the protective order and that Oracle met the burden to overcome the presumption of public access; parties filed redacted public versions

Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (presumption of public access to judicial records)
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (burden on party seeking to file materials under seal under a protective order)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (requiring compelling reasons and specific findings to overcome public access presumption)
Tovar v. United States Postal Service, 3 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 1993) (reply briefs should not present new arguments depriving opposing party of opportunity to respond)
Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478 (9th Cir. 1996) (court generally will not consider new evidence raised for first time in a reply brief)
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Shalala, 177 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 1999) (district court has inherent authority to allow a sur-reply when information is germane to resolution of a pending matter)