throbber
Case 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-VCF Document 1548 Filed 01/12/22 Page 1 of 56
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`* * *
`Case No. 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-VCF
`
`ORDER
`
`FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
`OF LAW AND
`
`
`ORDER
`
`ORACLE USA, INC.; a Colorado
`corporation; ORACLE AMERICA, INC.; a
`Delaware corporation; and ORACLE
`INTERNATINAL CORPORATION, a
`California corporation,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`RIMINI STREET, INC., a Nevada
`corporation; and SETH RAVIN, an
`individual,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`On March 31, 2021, the Court ordered Rimini Street, Inc. (“Rimini”) to show cause why it
`should not be held in contempt for violating the Permanent Injunction in this action and ordered
`an evidentiary hearing on several discrete issues. ECF No. 1459.1 Rimini filed its response (ECF
`No. 1467), Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle America, Inc., and Oracle International Corporation
`(collectively “Oracle”) replied (ECF No. 1472); and Rimini sur-replied (ECF No. 1478). A seven-
`day hearing was then held commencing on September 20, 2021. See ECF Nos. 1520, 1522, 1523,
`1524, 1525, 1526, & 1529. In accordance with the Court’s orders, the parties filed proposed
`findings of fact and conclusions of law on October 19, 2021. ECF Nos. 1544 & 1545. Having
`reviewed the record before it, the Court now finds that Rimini has, in part, violated the Permanent
`Injunction and that it should be held in contempt for those violations; conversely, the Order to
`Show Cause is discharged in part, in accordance with this Order. The Court orders sanctions
`against Rimini for its conduct in the manner described herein.
`
`1 The Court initially held that Rimini violated the Permanent Injunction as to two additional discrete updates
`(related to Campbell Soup and City of Eugene), but on reconsideration, struck those portions of the Order
`as the conduct occurred prior to the Permanent Injunction going into effect. See ECF No. 1476.
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-VCF Document 1548 Filed 01/12/22 Page 2 of 56
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`This action has an extensive 11-year history that includes two causes of action. In brief and
`relevant part, Oracle develops, manufactures, and licenses computer software, particularly
`Enterprise Software Programs. Oracle also provides after-license software support services to
`customers who license its copyrighted software. Rimini is a company that provides similar after-
`license software support services to customers licensing Oracle’s copyrighted software and
`directly competes to provide those services. Seth Ravin is the CEO of Rimini.
`Oracle first sued Rimini in 2010, alleging that Rimini infringed several of Oracle’s
`copyrights when it, inter alia, used work that it completed for one client for the benefit of other
`clients. Following the filing of dispositive motions, the Court granted summary judgment in favor
`of Oracle on some of its copyright infringement claims. Of importance to these proceedings was
`the Court’s finding that Rimini violated the “facilities restriction” within PeopleSoft’s standard
`licensing agreement when it hosted its clients’ development environments on its own computer
`systems, a process called “local hosting.” ECF No. 474; Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 6
`F. Supp. 3d 1086, 1096–98 (D. Nev. 2014) (“Oracle USA”). The Court further held that Rimini
`was infringing on Oracle’s copyrights for Oracle Database when it downloaded many copies of
`the software off Oracle’s network and failed to adhere to the Developer License. ECF No. 476;
`Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d 1108, 1115–20 (D. Nev. 2014). Later, after a
`month-long jury trial, the jury found in favor of Oracle on other copyright infringement claims
`related to Oracle’s J.D. Edwards and Siebel software.
`On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed both this Court’s grant of summary judgment and all
`of the jury’s verdict on infringement violations under the Copyright Act, only reversing regarding
`violations of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”) and the Nevada
`Computer Crimes Law (“NCCL”).2 Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 879 F.3d 948, 962 (9th
`Cir. 2018) (“Rimini I”). Given its rulings, the Ninth Circuit vacated this Court’s permanent
`
`
`2 The Ninth Circuit upheld the jury’s $35.6 million judgment against Rimini for its infringement and the
`Court’s award of approximately $22.4 million in prejudgment interest against Rimini, while reversing the
`jury’s $14.4 million award associated with the state law computer access claims. Rimini I, 879 F.3d at 953,
`962–64.
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-VCF Document 1548 Filed 01/12/22 Page 3 of 56
`
`
`
`
`injunction and remanded the case to determine whether a permanent injunction was warranted
`based solely on Rimini’s copyright infringement. Id. at 964.3
`On August 14, 2018, this Court granted Oracle’s renewed motion for a permanent
`injunction, which enjoins Rimini from continuing to infringe on Oracle’s copyrighted software.
`ECF No. 1164; Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 324 F. Supp. 3d 1157, 1167 (D. Nev. 2018).
`In relevant part, the Permanent Injunction provides:
`
`a. Rimini Street shall not reproduce, prepare derivative works from, or
`distribute PeopleSoft, J.D. Edwards, or Siebel software or documentation
`unless solely in connection with work for a specific customer that holds a
`valid, written license agreement for the particular PeopleSoft, J.D. Edwards,
`or Siebel software and documentation authorizing Rimini Street’s specific
`conduct;
`. . .
`
`
`PeopleSoft
`
`3. Rimini Street shall not distribute PeopleSoft software or documentation or any
`derivative works created from or with PeopleSoft software or documentation;
`
`4. Rimini Street shall not reproduce, prepare derivative works from, or use a
`specific licensee’s PeopleSoft software or documentation other than to support the
`specific licensee’s own internal data processing operations;
`
`5. Rimini Street shall not reproduce, prepare derivative works from, or use
`PeopleSoft software or documentation on, with, or to any computer systems other
`than a specific licensee’s own computer systems;
`
`6. Rimini Street shall not reproduce, prepare derivative works from, or use
`PeopleSoft software or documentation on one licensee’s computer systems to
`support, troubleshoot, or perform development or testing for any other licensee,
`including specifically, that Rimini Street shall not use a specific licensee’s
`PeopleSoft environment to develop or test software updates or modifications for
`the benefit of any other licensee[.]
`
`
`J.D. Edwards
`
`7. Rimini Street shall not distribute J.D. Edwards software or documentation or any
`derivative works created from or within J.D. Edwards software or documentation;
`
`8. Rimini Street shall not copy J.D. Edwards software source code to carry out
`development and testing of software updates;
`
`
`
`
`
`3 The Ninth Circuit also upheld this Court’s decision to grant Oracle the “full costs” of the litigation, which
`included expert witness fees, e-discovery expenses, and jury consultant fees. Id. at 965–66. The Supreme
`Court granted certiorari on this issue, subsequently reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that the Copyright
`Act only allows a district court to authorize awards for litigation expenses expressly listed in the costs
`statute. Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 873, 876 (2019).
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-VCF Document 1548 Filed 01/12/22 Page 4 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`10. Rimini Street shall not reproduce, prepare derivative works from, or use J.D.
`Edwards software or documentation on one licensee’s computer systems to support,
`troubleshoot, or perform development or testing for any other licensee, including,
`specifically, that Rimini Street shall not use a specific licensee’s J.D. Edwards
`environment to develop or test software updates or modifications for the benefit of
`any other licensee;
` . .
`
` .
`
`
`
`Oracle Database
`
`15. Rimini Street shall not reproduce, prepare derivative works from, or distribute
`Oracle Database software.
`ECF No. 1166 (modified per the Ninth Circuit’s order).
`In granting the Permanent Injunction, the Court noted that the balance of the hardships
`weighed in favor of its issuance because Oracle was seeking to enjoin only acts that had already
`been determined unlawful and that had been affirmed on appeal. ECF No. 1164 at 9. The Ninth
`Circuit affirmed this Permanent Injunction, except instructing the Court to strike paragraphs nine
`and thirteen and the words “or access” in paragraphs eight and twelve. ECF No. 1236; Oracle
`USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 783 F. App’x. 707, 710–11 (9th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (“The
`injunction enjoins ‘local hosting’ as to PeopleSoft, J.D. Edwards, and Siebel. But only the
`PeopleSoft license limits the licensee to using the licensed Software ‘at its facilities . . . .’
`(emphasis added), which is the basis for the local hosting requirement. . . . ‘Accessing’ a
`copyrighted work is not an infringing activity under the Copyright Act.”).4
`On April 4, 2019, the Court granted Oracle’s motion to reopen discovery to determine if
`Rimini had been complying with the Permanent Injunction. ECF Nos. 1199; 1215; 1218. The
`parties engaged in discovery for approximately a year and a half. ECF No. 1354. Following the
`close of discovery, Oracle filed its motion for an order to show cause why Rimini should not be
`held in contempt for violating the Permanent Injunction. Based on extensive briefing by the parties,
`the Court issued an Order to Show Cause on 10 discrete issues and held a seven-day bench trial
`on those issues; the Court’s order on which now follows. ECF Nos. 1459; 1520; 1522; 1523; 1524;
`1525; 1526; & 1529.
`///
`
`
`4 Denying cert., 140 S.Ct. 850 (Jan. 13, 2020) (Mem).
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-VCF Document 1548 Filed 01/12/22 Page 5 of 56
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 401, a federal court may hold any party
`in civil contempt for failing to comply with or violating a court order. 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). In the
`Ninth Circuit, a party fails to comply with a court order if they fail “to take all reasonable steps
`within the party’s power to comply.” United States v. DAS Corp., 18 F.4th 1032, 1039 (9th Cir.
`2021) (quoting In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th
`Cir. 1993) (“In re Dual-Deck”)). To support a judgment of contempt, a district court must find,
`based on clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the party violated a specific and definite court
`order; (2) the violation did not constitute “substantial compliance” with the order; and (3) the
`violation was not based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the order. In re Dual-Deck,
`10 F.3d at 695; see also FTC v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999); United
`States v. Bright, 596 F.3d 683, 694 (9th Cir. 2010). A party’s substantial compliance with a court
`order cannot be “vitiated by a few technical violations where every reasonable effort has been
`made to comply.” In re Dual-Deck, 10 F.3d at 695 (quotation omitted). Nor does a party’s failure
`to comply need to be intentional or willful to support a finding of contempt. In re Crystal Palace
`Gambling Hall, Inc., 817 F.2d 1361, 1365 (9th Cir. 1987). To satisfy the clear and convincing
`standard, the moving party must provide “evidence sufficient to reasonably satisfy [the court] that
`it is highly probable the ultimate fact at issue happened.” United States v. Century Clinic, Inc., 75
`F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1134–35 (D. Nev. 1998).
`III. FACTS STIPULATED TO BY THE PARTIES5
`Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle America”) is a Delaware corporation. At
`1.
`the time of the events at issue in this hearing, Oracle America had its principal place of business
`in Redwood City, California. Currently, Oracle America has its principal place of business in
`Austin, Texas.
`Oracle America is the successor in interest to Oracle USA and PeopleSoft USA,
`2.
`Inc., as well as a successor in interest to certain PeopleSoft and J.D. Edwards entities.
`
`5 The parties stipulated to the following facts in their Joint Pre-Hearing Order. See ECF No. 1503; ECF No.
`1484 at 22–24; ECF No. 1486-s (the Court designates sealed documents referenced within this order with
`a “-s” and will refer to confidential material where the interest of justice demands it).
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-VCF Document 1548 Filed 01/12/22 Page 6 of 56
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Intellectual property rights formerly held by certain PeopleSoft and J.D. Edwards
`3.
`entities were transferred to Oracle International Corporation (“OIC”) as part of the acquisitions of
`PeopleSoft and J.D. Edwards by Oracle.
`Oracle’s PeopleSoft and J.D. Edwards product lines are Enterprise Resource
`4.
`Planning (“ERP”) software. At a high level of generality, ERP software helps companies perform
`complex tasks such as human resource functions, payroll, taxes, and customer relationship
`management.
`Unlike off-the-shelf consumer software used by individuals, Oracle Software is
`5.
`used by organizations, and can be modified and customized by the organizations for their own
`business purposes.
`Software support is often necessary for ERP software, particularly software relating
`6.
`to payroll or human resources functions, because it must be frequently updated to work properly.
`As tax laws and other laws and regulations change, Oracle’s PeopleSoft and J.D.
`7.
`Edwards software generally must be updated to account for the change. For example, if a payroll
`tax rate changes, the software must be updated to reflect the new rate.
`A common feature of ERP software, including Oracle’s PeopleSoft and J.D.
`8.
`Edwards software, is that a licensee can modify and customize the software for the licensee’s own
`business purposes, subject to the terms of an applicable license.
`In addition to the license to the underlying software, Oracle also enters into separate
`9.
`support contracts with its customers, which entitle them to receive, for an annual maintenance fee,
`software upgrades (including new versions of the software) and software support, including fixes,
`patches, and updates typically made available for download from Oracle’s password-protected
`websites.
`Rimini is a Delaware corporation founded in 2005, with its headquarters in Nevada.
`10.
`Rimini provides software support services to licensees of ERP software, including
`11.
`licensees of Oracle’s PeopleSoft and J.D. Edwards software.
`Rimini offers updates and fixes to its clients for PeopleSoft and J.D. Edwards
`12.
`software as part of its support services for those product lines.
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-VCF Document 1548 Filed 01/12/22 Page 7 of 56
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`The Court entered the Permanent Injunction on August 15, 2018.
`13.
`On August 16, 2018, Rimini filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Enforcement of
`14.
`the Permanent Injunction. On September 11, 2018, the Court temporarily stayed the Permanent
`Injunction for a period of up to sixty days to allow Rimini to seek a stay pending appeal from the
`Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit denied Rimini’s motion to stay the Permanent Injunction pending
`appeal on November 5, 2018.
`The Permanent Injunction went into effect on November 5, 2018.
`15.
`16.
`Rimini’s PeopleSoft and J.D. Edwards clients related to the alleged injunction
`violations to be adjudicated at the evidentiary hearing entered into written license agreements with
`Oracle that granted these clients certain license rights to use Oracle’s PeopleSoft and J.D. Edwards
`software.
`Development environments are distinct from a production environment, which is
`17.
`the version of the software that members of the enterprise ultimately employ.
`Rockefeller Group International became a Rimini client on or about December 21,
`18.
`
`2018.
`
`Home Shopping Network became a Rimini client on or about March 29, 2019.
`19.
`IV. DISPUTED ISSUES
`A. Issue 1: PeopleSoft Files Found on Rimini Systems
`i. Findings of Fact
`R.R. Donnelley & Sons:
`On January 22, 2019, Rimini client R.R. Donnelley & Sons opened a case with
`1.
`Rimini: “We’re getting an error message with paycheck modeler functionality. It was working fine
`before applying RS18P05 tax updates and we had compiled cobols as part of P05 updates. Please
`find attached the error message screen shot, same error occurs in both self service, admin pay
`check modeler page.” OREX_0013 at 2.
`On January 23, 2019, Rimini engineer Venugopal Nabhi, responded stating: “I have
`2.
`taken over the case from Anil because one of my clients reported exactly the same issue. I will
`have Product Delivery add this case also to the fix they are working on.” OREX_0013 at 3.
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-VCF Document 1548 Filed 01/12/22 Page 8 of 56
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`On March 21, 2019, Jim Benge, Rimini’s Vice President of PeopleSoft
`3.
`Development, emailed R.R. Donnelley & Sons: “To address this case, Individual Update
`HCM200417 has been posted to the C:\RiminiStreetUpdates folder on your machine named
`CWDAXD-HRTXUPD1.” OREX_0013 at 7.
`The case was not resolved and on March 27, 2019, R.R. Donnelley & Sons emailed:
`4.
`“I am finding the psptaxdt.dms that Rimini delivered to fix this issue is a old version which is
`missing the 02/26/2019 RSI-HCM200347 updates[.] So I think that we do not need to apply this
`one or run this dms[.] I was able to fix the paycheck modeller issue in PSHRK without applying
`this dms, I applied everything else. The attached psptaxdt.dms is the current version in our
`production[.] Below is a screenshot LHS (prod version) RHS delivered as part of this fix.”
`OREX_0013 at 8; DTX-111-001.
`In response, Rimini engineer Venugopal Nabhi emailed: “I can see only one DMS
`5.
`script (psptaxdt) that you have attached and it has a change log that reads as ‘09/05/2018 RSI-
`HCM200069’. I am not able to see any LHS or RHS screenshots that you have mentioned about.
`Can you please clarify? I will check with Product Delivery once I have your inputs. Further, what
`is PSHRK environment?” OREX_0013 at 9.
`R.R. Donnelley & Sons responded: “I have attached the screenshot of the patch
`6.
`psptaxdt.dms (RHS) and our prod version (LHS)[.] Our current prod version of psptaxdt.dms is
`also attached. We would like to confirm if the prod version is the latest version of psptaxdt.dms
`inclusive of the changes in this paycheck modeller patch[.] In that case we do not need to apply
`the Paychek [sic] modeller patch psptaxdt.dms version.” OREX_0013 at 9–10.
`From this email exchange, the Court finds that R.R. Donnelley & Sons sent the
`7.
`Oracle copyrighted PeopleSoft file, psptaxdt.dms, to Rimini. By receiving this copyrighted
`material, Rimini therefore had PeopleSoft copyrighted material on its systems.
`In order to respond to R.R. Donnelley & Sons, Rimini engineer Venugopal Nabhi
`8.
`reviewed the prohibited attached file, responding to the client: “The LHS version has a time stamp
`of Feb 2019, so certainly that is the latest. But I will check with Product Delivery as to why they
`provided the fix in an earlier version. I guess they provided the fix to other clients in the older
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-VCF Document 1548 Filed 01/12/22 Page 9 of 56
`
`
`
`
`version, but as they were having issues with your environment, they could not deliver the fix
`[un]till recently. In the meantime, another version seems to have been rolled out.” OREX_0013 at
`10. When Venugopal Nabhi reviewed the file, further copies of the prohibited file were created on
`Rimini systems.
`On April 15, 2019, R.R. Donnelley & Sons wrote that the case could be closed, and
`9.
`that the paycheck modeler issue had been resolved. OREX_0013 at 12.
`Nowhere during this exchange between Rimini engineers and R.R. Donnelley &
`10.
`Sons did Rimini email or otherwise inform R.R. Donnelley & Sons not to send Oracle files to
`Rimini. See OREX_0013; ECF No. 1538 at 222.
`The Court finds that the record does not support a finding that this prohibited
`11.
`document was ever reported to Rimini’s security or compliance department even though, under
`Rimini’s own Acceptable Use Policy,6 it should have been. ECF No. 1538 at 222.
`The Court finds, and the parties agree, that this was a violation of Rimini’s
`12.
`Acceptable Use Policy. ECF No. 1538 at 220 (“We should not have Oracle files on our system,
`and this was a case where the client clearly sent us one file that contained stored procedures for a
`program.”).
`Rimini employees did not immediately quarantine the prohibited file. ECF No.
`13.
`1538 at 222–23.7 The file was ultimately quarantined, by at least August 28, 2019, approximately
`five months after the offending conduct. ECF No. 1542 at 120; OREX_0013 at 8.8
`///
`
`
`6 Rimini adopted an Acceptable Use Policy (“AUP”), which prohibits storing Oracle’s software, files, code,
`or any other intellectual property on its systems. ECF No. 1537 at 179; OREX_0017.
`
` 8
`
` Rimini Senior Vice-President of Global Support, Craig Mackereth testified that he could tell the file had
`been quarantined because the case was last modified by Maurya Priyadarshi, a member of the IT Sales
`Force Administration Team, who would have no reason to modify the files as she is not a member of the
`support team. See OREX_0013 at 8; ECF No. 1542 at 120 (“When information is flagged through one of
`our processes that it’s potentially third-party intellectual property, the IT team will intervene and quarantine
`these files which has happened here.”).
`
`
`
`9
`
`The – and you’re not aware that this file was quarantined in any respect, are you?
`The compliance department would handle that. If it was reported, it would be quarantined.
`And, to your knowledge, this wasn’t reported.
`Not to my knowledge.
`
` 7
`
` Q
` A
` Q
` A
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-VCF Document 1548 Filed 01/12/22 Page 10 of 56
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`G-6 Hospitality:
`On November 27, 2018, G-6 Hospitality emailed Rimini to inquire if there was
`14.
`anything needed of them. Rimini responded asking, in part, if the “PUM 28 documentation” was
`on the “shared file.” DTX_0100-005. “PUM” means “product update documentation” and “shared
`file” means the “shared location on the Dev and QA machine where [Rimini] can remotely access
`it over the internet.” ECF No. 1538 at 98.
`G-6 Hospitality responded to this email by attaching the “image 28 documentation”
`15.
`to the SalesForce email. DTX_0100-004. When Rimini received this email with the associated
`attachments, it resulted in copies of Oracle’s copyrighted PeopleSoft materials being made on
`Rimini’s systems.
`Upon receiving this information, Rimini employee Kelly Day emailed G-6
`16.
`Hospitality to inform them that Rimini did not have the “means” to copy the documentation to the
`Rimini workstation and asked for G-6 Hospitality to place the file on “S-DAL01-RIMIW71.”
`DTX-100-002–003.
`On that same day, Rimini Onboarding Account Manager Barbara MacEachern
`17.
`emailed G-6 Hospitality asking for the “Functional user documentation.” DTX-0100-002. These
`documents are PeopleSoft files that describe the “last tax update” G-6 Hospitality received from
`Oracle before joining Rimini. ECF No. 1538 at 96–97.
`G-6 Hospitality again responded by attaching the documents related to “Payroll for
`18.
`image 28”9 to the SalesForce email. DTX-0100-001. When Rimini received this email with the
`associated attachments, it resulted in copies of Oracle’s copyrighted PeopleSoft materials being
`made on Rimini’s systems.
`Upon receiving this second attachment, Rimini Onboarding Account Manager
`19.
`Barbara MacEachern forwarded the G-6 Hospitality email, containing eight file attachments, to
`Rimini employees Shelley Blackmarr and Jim Benge, with the text: “We seem to have a problem
`getting the client to place these on the shared file. The main Contact Ravi is on vacation.”
`
`
`9 “Image 28” documentation and “PUM 28” documentation are the same thing. ECF No. 1538 at 100.
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-VCF Document 1548 Filed 01/12/22 Page 11 of 56
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`DTX-0100-001. When Barbara MacEachern forwarded the email with the associated attachments,
`it resulted in copies of Oracle’s copyrighted PeopleSoft materials being made on Rimini’s systems.
`The email chain and the attachments sent to Rimini occurred during G-6
`20.
`Hospitality’s “onboarding process”; (the period of time when the new client has signed on for
`Rimini support and Rimini is establishing environments, setting up remote connectivity, and
`understanding “where the client left off support from Oracle” so that Rimini does not overlap
`updates). ECF No. 1538 at 97–98.
`The Court finds, and Rimini agrees, that the forwarding of these Oracle documents
`21.
`was a violation of Rimini’s Acceptable Use Policy. ECF No. 1538 at 100, 217.
`Other than Kelly Day’s email to G-6 Hospitality indicating that Rimini did not have
`22.
`the “means” to copy the files to Rimini workstations, the record does not support that Rimini
`employees emailed or otherwise informed G-6 Hospitality during this email exchange not to send
`Oracle files to Rimini.
`This violation of Rimini’s Acceptable Use Policy was not sent to Rimini’s security
`23.
`or the compliance department, even though under the policy, it should have been. ECF No. 1538
`at 100, 102, 216–17.
`Jim Benge, a Rimini employee copied on the prohibited email, was disciplined with
`24.
`a formal warning for failing to report that he had “been copied on something that contained Oracle
`files.” ECF No. 1538 at 100–01. While the email occurred in November 2018, the warning
`comprising his discipline did not occur until 2020. ECF No. 1538 at 216.10 Rimini provided no
`documentation that Jim Benge was given a formal warning, nor did it present any documentation
`regarding the supposed investigation into the misconduct.
`///
`///
`///
`
`
`10 Jim Benge testified that he believes Barbara MacEachern was also disciplined for this incident and her
`consequences were more severe due to her conduct of forwarding the email; however, no documentation
`was provided to support this testimony and Ms. MacEachern did not testify. ECF No. 1538 at 101, 216.
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-VCF Document 1548 Filed 01/12/22 Page 12 of 56
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Nothing in the record supports a finding that Rimini quarantined the prohibited files
`25.
`once they were on Rimini’s systems.11
`Texas Children’s Hospital:
`On January 18, 2019, Texas Children’s Hospital emailed Thomas Glazer, a Senior
`26.
`Global Client Environments Engineer at Rimini, attaching the “18-E release notes.” DTX-0110-
`005.
`
`Thomas Glazer responded: “Awesome, thanks Eric. We’ll check it out. . . ”.
`27.
`DTX-110-005.
`These files contained Oracle PeopleSoft copyrighted material and when Rimini
`28.
`received the files, a copy was created on Rimini’s systems. OREX_0094; ECF No. 1535 at 153,
`156.
`
`The record does not support a finding that these prohibited files were quarantined.12
`29.
`Rather, the metadata for file “2019 US Tax Table Updates.docx” (OREX_0096) shows that it was
`moved to folder “Rimini Street/User Share/Thomas Glazer/TCH” on Rimini systems on November
`30, 2019, approximately 10 months after it was received. OREX_0097 at 1. This conduct resulted
`in additional copies of the prohibited files on Rimini’s systems.13 ECF No. 1535 at 156.
`During discovery, Oracle located these files on Rimini’s ShareFile on its systems.
`30.
`ECF No. 1535 at 154.
`From the email exchange in evidence, the record does not support that Rimini
`31.
`employees emailed or otherwise informed Texas Children’s Hospital not to send Rimini Oracle
`files.
`
`
`11 While Rimini Vice President Craig Mackereth testified that there is a procedure for automatically
`informing Rimini security of a potential violation, he did not specifically discuss that this occurred with the
`documents sent to Rimini, nor was any evidence presented to support a finding that Rimini engineers used
`the “check-box” functionality in SalesForce to automatically inform the security or compliance departments
`and quarantine the prohibited files. See ECF No. 1542 at 112–13.
`
`12 See note 11.
`
`
`13 This file was discussed during the hearing in relation to the G-6 Hospitality files. See ECF No. 1538 at
`218–19. However, from the metadata, it appears that this file is associated with “18-E” notices in relation
`to the Texas Children’s Hospital files. OREX_0096; OREX_0097. Accordingly, the Court considers it as
`such.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-VCF Document 1548 Filed 01/12/22 Page 13 of 56
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Additional Instances:14 Evergreen
`On May 16, 2019, Rimini PeopleSoft Environments Engineer Manjula Hosalli
`32.
`emailed client Evergreen asking them to compile certain COBOL files. OREX_0100 at 5.
`Evergreen is a Rimini client, and it uses another third-party company, SpearMC,15
`33.
`to provide additional support. ECF No. 1542 at 106, 108.
`Evergreen responded that it received an error message and sent Manjula Hosalli a
`34.
`screenshot of the message. OREX_0100 at 3–4.
`35. Manjula Hosalli requested that Evergreen place the “PSPTCALC.lis” file
`somewhere in server 10.2.251.108 and share the location with Rimini so that an engineer could
`investigate the error. OREX_0100 at 3.
`Evergreen then attached the file and sent it to Manjula Hosalli. OREX_0100 at 1.
`36.
`This file contained Oracle PeopleSoft copyrighted material and when Rimini received the file and
`opened it, a copy was created on Rimini’s systems. OREX_0099; ECF No. 1535 at 170–71.
`On May 24, 2019, Rimini Lead Developer Syed Abdul Khari emailed that the issue
`37.
`with the file had been fixed and shared the location of the updated files. OREX_0100 at 1. From
`this exchange, the Court finds that Rimini used the prohibited file to fix Evergreen’s problem
`which resulted in additional copies of the prohibited document being made on Rimini’s systems.
`From the email exchange in evidence, the record does not support that Rimini
`38.
`employees emailed or otherwise informed Evergreen not to send Oracle files to Rimini.
`Nothing in the record supports a finding that the prohibited COBOL file was
`39.
`quarantined. See ECF No. 1542 at 189 (“There is nothing here that tells me how the document was
`treated once it was received by Rimini Street.”).16
`///
`
`
`14 The Court previously held that while the Court would not expand its previous ruling to add additional
`contempt violations (beyond those related to R.R. Donnelley & Sons, G-6 Hospitality, and Texas Children’s
`Hospital), the Court would consider additional violations to determine if Rimini is substantially complying
`with the Permanent Injunction and Rimini’s diligence and good faith efforts to comply in assessing
`sanctions. See ECF No. 1503 at 4–5.
`15 When Rimini emailed Evergreen, it was communicating with SpearMC, acting on behalf of Evergreen.
`SpearMC is an “AMS provider” that is part of Oracle’s “partner network.” ECF No. 1542 at 106–08.
`
`16 See note 11.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-VCF Document 1548 Filed 01/12/22 Page 14 of 5

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket