Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1072

RESPONSE (re 1070 MOTION Approval of Security Pursuant to FRCP 62 Defendants' Motion For Approval of Security Pursuant to Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ) filed byOracle International Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alinder, Zachary) (Filed on 5/20/2011)

1

20

BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
DONN P. PICKETT (SBN 72257)
GEOFFREY M. HOWARD (SBN 157468)
HOLLY A. HOUSE (SBN 136045)
ZACHARY J. ALINDER (SBN 209009)
BREE HANN (SBN 215695)
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111-4067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.393.2286
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (SBN 144177)
FRED NORTON (SBN 224725)
1999 Harrison St., Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049)
JENNIFER GLOSS (SBN 154227)
500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7
Redwood City, CA 94070
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650.506.7144
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

21

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., et al.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

22
23
24

ORACLE USA, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

25

v.

26

No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING SAP’S
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF
SECURITY

SAP AG, et al.,

27

Defendants.

28
No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING SAP’S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SECURITY

1

Before the Court is the Motion for Approval of Security Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

2

P. 62 (the “Motion”) filed by Defendants SAP AG, SAP America, Inc., and TomorrowNow, Inc.

3

(collectively, “SAP”) and opposed by Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International

4

Corporation, and Siebel Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Oracle,” and together with SAP, the

5

“Parties”).

6

After considering the pleadings, memoranda, and supporting papers and

7

arguments from the Parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that SAP’s Motion is DENIED. IT

8

IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT SAP shall modify its proposed bond as follows:

9

(1)

10
11

removed as parties to the bond;
(2)

12
13

In the first paragraph, Oracle USA, Inc. and Siebel Systems, Inc. shall be

In the first paragraph, the phrase “its successors and assignees” shall be
added after “Oracle International Corporation,”;

(3)

The paragraph beginning “NOW, THEREFORE” shall be modified to

14

read as follows: “NOW, THEREFORE, the condition of this obligation is

15

such that this obligation shall be void if Defendants prosecute their

16

postjudgment motions and/or any subsequent appeals to the Ninth Circuit

17

Court of Appeals and/or the United States Supreme Court, and either (a)

18

Defendants satisfy said judgment in full together with costs, interest and

19

damages for delay if for any reason the motions are not granted and the

20

appeal is dismissed or if the judgment is affirmed; or (b) Defendants

21

satisfy in full such modification of the judgment and such costs, interest

22

and damages as the United States District Court for the Northern District

23

of California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and/or the United States

24

Supreme Court may adjudge and award. Otherwise this obligation shall

25

remain in full force and effect.”; and

26

(4)

The following language shall be added as the last paragraph of the bond:

27

“IT IS FURTHER AGREED by each Surety that it meets the qualification

28

requirements of Civil L.R. 65.1-1(b), and that, in the event that the Surety
2

No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING SAP’S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SECURITY

1

defaults or refuses to obey any court order requiring payment, the Court

2

may, upon notice to the Surety of not less than ten days, proceed

3

summarily and render judgment against the Surety in accordance with its

4

obligation and award execution thereon.”

5

IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT SAP shall re-file the revised bond for the

6

Court’s approval within ten days of entry of this Order:

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10
11
12

Dated: _____________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Court Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING SAP’S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SECURITY