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