During the course of Google and Oracle's multi-year court battle over whether Android illegally used patented Java technology that belonged to Oracle, the most recent trial got more than a little crazy. As the proceedings played out, Oracle's lead lawyer, Annette Hurst, made herself well-known. In between going off on Andy Rubin, comparing Google's use of open-source APIs to outright theft, and saying that Android cost Oracle an insane amount of money over the past years, she let a few pieces of info slip that were supposed to be confidential. Namely, she pulled up transcripts that pointed to the amount of revenue that Android makes, a figure that Google had kept private, and the fact that Google paid Apple $1 billion to be the default search engine on the iPhone.
After the dust settled with the main trial, Google moved to file a sanction against Hurst. They wanted compensation for court costs relating to redacting the records she exposed, and for the damage done to them commercially - as before anything could be redacted, the data had became front-page news. Oracle has now fired back though, saying that Hurst's actions were in response to pressure from Magistrate Judge Ryu and to "mischaracterizations" made by Google over the course of the proceedings. Oracle contends that although Hurst's actions were indeed hurtful, they were not intended as such, and although her actions were wrong, they broke no rules or laws. They said that her actions were "not effective or appropriate", given the matter at hand.
From this response, Google has 10 days to officially respond, or they can stay silent until the September 22 court date over the matter. Google will be fighting for reimbursement of the court costs and attorney fees associated with filing the motion for contempt and the sanction against Hurst, as well as any other relevant damages and remedies, which Google is leaving to the discretion of the court. Both sides are technically correct; Annette Hurst acted in the spur of the moment to settle a budding argument, and ended up doing serious harm to Google's commercial interests, but broke no courtroom rules or relevant laws in doing so. Whether she or Oracle should be punished for it will be a matter for the court to decide.