Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1087

STIPULATION re 1086 MOTION to Stay for Order Shortening Time by Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Howard, Geoffrey) (Filed on 9/13/2011)

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

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: [phone]
[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: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., et al.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
ORACLE USA, INC., et al.,
No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)
DECLARATION OF GEOFFREY M.
Plaintiffs,
HOWARD IN SUPPORT OF
v.
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR
ORDER SHORTENING TIME RE
SAP AG, et al,
ORACLE’S MOTION FOR STAY
Defendants.

26
27
28

HOWARD DECLARATION RE REQUEST FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME, CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

1

I, Geoffrey M. Howard, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and am

3

a partner at Bingham McCutchen LLP, counsel of record for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc. and

4

Oracle International Corporation. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated within this

5

Declaration and could testify competently to them if required.

6

2.

On September 1, 2011, the Court issued its Order Granting Defendants’

7

Motion for JMOL, and Motion for New Trial; Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial;

8

Order Partially Vacating Judgment (the “Post-Trial Order”) (Docket No. 1081). The Post-Trial

9

Order requires Oracle to submit a statement accepting or rejecting the remittitur no later than

10
11

September 30, 2011. Post-Trial Order at 20.
3.

On September 12, 2011, Plaintiff Oracle International Corporation filed a

12

motion to certify the Post-Trial Order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (the

13

“Certification Motion”). On September 13, 2011, Oracle USA, Inc. and Oracle International

14

Corporation (“Oracle”) filed a motion to stay all other case activities and the deadline to accept

15

or reject the remittitur while the certification motion and any resulting appellate proceedings are

16

pending (the “Stay Motion”). Pursuant to the Court’s Calendar Schedule Notes, Oracle noticed

17

both motions for the Court’s first available hearing date for cases with docket numbers ending in

18

even digits, January 11, 2012.

19

4.

Because Oracle must accept or reject the remittitur by September 30, 2011

20

but its stay motion cannot be heard on normal time until January 2012, Oracle’s deadline to

21

accept or reject the remittitur will pass before the stay motion is heard. Oracle also anticipates

22

that, absent a stay, additional pretrial or other deadlines may be set or even pass before that time.

23

Since Oracle is seeking a stay of the deadline to accept or reject the remittitur and other pretrial

24

deadlines, effective relief cannot be granted unless the stay motion is heard before those

25

deadlines pass. Oracle therefore requests that the Stay Motion be heard on shortened time,

26

before the deadline to accept or reject the remittitur expires.

27
28

5.

On September 12, 2011, I emailed Tharan Gregory Lanier, counsel for

Defendants SAP AG, SAP America, Inc. and TomorrowNow, Inc. to inquire whether Defendants
1
HOWARD DECLARATION RE REQUEST FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME, CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

1

would stipulate to request an order shortening time. Mr. Lanier responded that Defendants

2

intend to oppose Oracle’s Stay Motion and Certification Motion, but that Defendants will

3

stipulate that the Stay Motion be heard on shortened time.

4

6.

The Parties have jointly and separately requested and received unrelated

5

pre-trial and post-trial time modifications in this case. Since the entry of Judgment on February

6

3, 2011 (Docket No. 1036), the Court has ordered and extended a temporary stay of execution of

7

judgment (Docket Nos., 1038, 1040, 1050 and 1069) and has approved an extended briefing

8

schedule for post-judgment briefs (Docket Nos. 1043 and 1050). See Civil Local Rule 6-2(a)(2).

9

7.

The requested order shortening time will, if granted, cause the Stay

10

Motion to be heard and decided in September 2011 instead of January 2012. The requested

11

order shortening time will have no other effect on the current case schedule. See Civil Local

12

Rule 6-2(a)(3).

13

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the

14

foregoing facts are true and correct, and that this Declaration was executed on September 13,

15

2011, in San Francisco, CA.

16

/s/ Geoffrey M. Howard
Geoffrey M. Howard

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
HOWARD DECLARATION RE REQUEST FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME, CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)