Jaime A. Bartlett

Recent Trial Victories

• In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litig., C.A. No. 2017-0337-SG (Delaware Chancery Court, 2022). Representing chair of the Transaction Committee for Oracle’s 2016 acquisition of NetSuite in a bench trial proceeding before Vice Chancellor Glasscock. Plaintiffs dismissed the client with prejudice after a two-week bench trial in July 2022, in which plaintiffs failed to present any evidence supporting their claim that the client breached her duties to Oracle in connection with the acquisition. The Sidley team also represented the other members of the Transaction Committee along with most of the other directors in connection with this matter, and obtained their dismissals from the action prior to trial.
  
• Doe v. Shiomoto, Case No. RG16805013 (Alameda County Superior Court, 2020–2021). First-chair in the successful bench trial of claims brought on behalf of a California taxpayer against the California Department of Motor Vehicles asserting, among other claims, that the DMV violates the California Labor Code and drivers’ right to privacy under the California Constitution when it discloses certain information on drivers’ public driving record. In May 2021, the court ruled in plaintiff’s favor finding that the DMV’s practice violates the California Labor Code for all California licensed drivers and the constitutional right to privacy of non-commercially licensed California drivers. The matter is on appeal to the California Court of Appeal.

Other Representative Matters

• Defense of McKesson Corp. and two former officers in shareholder class action, Evanston, et al. v. McKesson Corp. et al. (N.D. Cal.), and of McKesson Corp. current and former directors and officers in derivative action, Henry v. Tyler, et. al. (N.D. Cal.).
• Defense of certain former Twitter executives in shareholder class action, Baker, et al. v. Twitter, et al. (C.D. Cal.).
• In Delaware Chancery Court, defending members of a special committee alleged to have breached their fiduciary duties by issuing a dividend of super-voting preferred stock.
• Representing a cloud security company founder in a civil fraud dispute with former company co-founder.
• Representing a Bay Area biotech company in responding to SEC inquiries.
  
• Alpert v. Cuesta Title Company (San Luis Obispo, Cal., Superior Court): a bellwether jury trial for eight coordinated cases brought by approximately 500 plaintiffs/investors who lost over $75 million in an alleged criminal Ponzi scheme. Sidley’s clients were alleged to have breached their contractual duties related to escrow and title work, and to have been negligent in connection with, participated in, or aided and abetted the purported fraudulent scheme. After a nine-week trial, the jury rejected every one of plaintiffs’ claims and returned a defense verdict on all counts.
• Wooldridge, et al. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company, et al. (San Luis Obispo, Cal., Superior Court): a follow-on to the Alpert matter discussed above — alleging breach of contractual duties, negligence, and fraud against Sidley’s clients — tried before Judge Ginger Garratt to a defense verdict on all counts.