Judge William Alsup in the US has said that the search engine giant had "failed to comply" with the original deadline. It now has until August 24 to provide the requested details.
Last Friday (August 17), Oracle confirmed that it had financial connections to patent consultant and blogger Florian Mueller and Stanford law professor Paul Goldstein, who had both commented on the patent trial with Google.
The judge said that he had become "concerned" that payments allegedly made by both firms could have influenced the media coverage of the multi-billion dollar case, even if they were made indirectly.
Google insisted in its first response that it had not paid any "author, journalist, commentator of blogger to report or comment" on the case, nor had there been any kind of "quid pro quo" arrangements.
The company acknowledged that it did have financial connections to people who might have commented on the trial, but warned that it would be "extraordinarily difficult and perhaps impossible" to identify all of them.
In response Judge Alsup said: "Google suggests that it has paid so many commentators that it will be impossible to list them all.
"Please simply do your best but the impossible is not required. Oracle managed to do it."
Google was ordered to list all the consultants, contractors, employees or vendors it had a financial relationship with, and who were known to be "commenters".
But the judge said that gifts to universities can be disregarded, as can bloggers who were signed up to Google Adsense.
The media and blogosphere closely followed the court case in the US earlier in the year, as Oracle claimed that it was owed around $1 billion (£640 million) in compensation for Google's use of the Java technologies in the Android system.
The jury ultimately ruled that Oracle's patents had not been breached and the judge dismissed a copyright claim, although Oracle intends to appeal.
There had been concern that one-sided commentary on the case on blogs and social media could have influenced the jurors, even though they were told to avoid all the coverage.
Oracle announced on Friday that it had a financial relationship with Mueller, who had himself disclosed the payments in April on his blog as the trial got underway.
> Apple defeated in slide-to-unlock patent fight
Judge Alsup said that even though the payment was for patent consultancy work, it "might have influenced the blogger's reports on issues in the civil action".
"Just as a treatise on the law may influence the courts, public commentary that purports to be independent may have an influence on the courts and/or their staff if only in subtle ways," he added. "If a treatise author or blogger is paid by a litigant, should not that relationship be known?"
Chris Watson, a partner at law firm CMS Cameron McKenna, told BBC News that the "distinction between editorial and paid-for content is a very fine one, but it's crucial to readers and to journalism".
"What all major companies are doing is what they have always done - pursue any means available to influence public opinion and the opinion of government and regulators," he said.
"The most important control mechanism is transparency and we will only have that if there are enforceable guidelines - so at the least we now need a code of conduct for anyone who takes money and publishes comment."