Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1150

RESPONSE (re 1122 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Saved Development Costs, 1124 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Up-Sell and Cross-Sell Projections ) Defendants' Opposition to Oracle's Motions for Leave to File Motions for Reconsideration Regarding (1) Saved Development Costs and (2) Up-Sell and Cross-Sell Projections filed bySAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Order)(Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 5/1/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Robert A. Mittelstaedt (SBN 060359)
Jason McDonell (SBN 115084)
Elaine Wallace (SBN 197882)
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Tharan Gregory Lanier (SBN 138784)
Jane L. Froyd (SBN 220776)
JONES DAY
1755 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Scott W. Cowan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Joshua L. Fuchs (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
JONES DAY
717 Texas, Suite 3300
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
SAP AG, SAP AMERICA, INC., and
TOMORROWNOW, INC.

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21

OAKLAND DIVISION

22
23

ORACLE USA, INC., et al.,

24

Plaintiffs,

25

v.

26

Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ORACLE’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING
SAVED DEVELOPMENT COSTS

SAP AG, et al.,

27

Defendants.

28
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ORACLE’S MOT.
FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOT. FOR RECONSID.
Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

1

Having considered the papers filed by the parties in connection with Oracle’s Motion for

2

Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Saved Development Costs (the “Motion”):

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Oracle’s Motion is DENIED.

4

Oracle has moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration regarding the Court’s

5

ruling at the September 30, 2010 Final Pretrial Conference and its Final Pretrial Order excluding

6

evidence of saved development costs. Oracle argues that this type of evidence is relevant to

7

calculating actual damages in the form of a hypothetical license and that reconsideration is

8

appropriate because the Court failed to consider dispositive legal arguments Oracle offered to

9

support admitting such evidence. Two reasons compel denial of the Motion.

10

First, the Motion is moot. For the reasons stated in the Court’s September 1, 2011 Order,

11

ECF No. 1081, Oracle may not pursue hypothetical license damages in this case, and the new trial

12

will be limited to determining lost profits and infringer’s profits only. Oracle’s Motion seeks to

13

revisit the Court’s orders addressing the admissibility of evidence that Oracle would offer solely

14

in support of its precluded hypothetical license claim. There is no need for this Court to

15

reconsider its rulings on evidence that is irrelevant to the new proceedings.

16

Second, Oracle’s Motion fails to comply with the Local Rules. Where a court’s ruling

17

has not resulted in a final judgment or order, a party may seek reconsideration of the ruling under

18

Civil Local Rule 7-9, but must first obtain leave of the court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a)-(b) (citing Fed. R.

19

Civ. P. 54(b)). The Rule allows reconsideration under only three circumstances: (1) where, at the

20

time of the motion, “a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to

21

the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought”; (2) the

22

“emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order”; or

23

(3) “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments”

24

presented to the court before the order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Civil Local Rule 7-9 also expressly

25

prohibits the repetition of “any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of

26

or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered. Any

27

party who violates this restriction shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(c).

28

Courts may summarily deny motions that are not filed in compliance with the Local Rules.
-1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ORACLE’S MOT.
FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOT. FOR RECONSID.
Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

1

Grove v. Wells Fargo Fin. Cal., Inc., 606 F.3d 577, 582 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding district court’s

2

denial of motion to tax costs that was not in compliance with court’s local rules); Elder-Evins v.

3

Casey, No. C 09-05775 SBA, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103080, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2011)

4

(denying motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration for failing to show any of three

5

conditions required for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9).

6

Here, Oracle does not argue that it is entitled to reconsideration on the grounds of newly

7

discovered facts or an intervening change in controlling law. Instead, Oracle asserts that the

8

Court should reconsider its evidentiary ruling on saved development costs due to a “manifest

9

failure” by the Court to consider dispositive legal arguments. In support of this claim, Oracle

10

offers only recycled arguments, which the Court considered and rejected in making its rulings.

11

There is no basis for Oracle’s contention that the Court failed to consider the parties’ detailed

12

arguments on these issues, on which the Court entertained both written and oral argument.

13

Salinas v. City of San Jose, No. 5:09-cv-04410 EJD, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94354, at *9 (N.D.

14

Cal. Aug. 23, 2011). Oracle’s repetition of arguments also violates Local Rule 7-9(c)’s express

15

prohibition. Because Oracle fails to make any of the three showings required by Civil Local Rule

16

7-9, the Motion is DENIED.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21

DATED: ________________________

By:
Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ORACLE’S MOT.
FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOT. FOR RECONSID.
Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)