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:
(415) 626-3939
Facsimile:
(415) 875-5700
ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com
jmcdonell@jonesday.com
ewallace@jonesday.com
Tharan Gregory Lanier (SBN 138784)
Jane L. Froyd (SBN 220776)
JONES DAY
1755 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Telephone:
(650) 739-3939
Facsimile:
(650) 739-3900
tglanier@jonesday.com
jfroyd@jonesday.com
Scott W. Cowan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Joshua L. Fuchs (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
JONES DAY
717 Texas, Suite 3300
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone:
(832) 239-3939
Facsimile:
(832) 239-3600
swcowan@jonesday.com
jlfuchs@jonesday.com
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 UPSELL AND CROSS-SELL PROJECTIONS
SAP AG, et al.,
Defendants.
27
28
SVI-107880v1
[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 Up-Sell and Cross-Sell Projections (the
3
“Motion”):
4
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Oracle’s Motion is DENIED.
5
Oracle has moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration regarding the Court’s
6
November 8, 2010 ruling at the first trial excluding evidence of cross-sell and up-sell projections.
7
Oracle argues that this type of evidence is relevant to calculating actual damages in the form of a
8
hypothetical license and that reconsideration is appropriate because the Court failed to consider
9
dispositive legal arguments Oracle offered to support admitting such evidence. Two reasons
10
11
compel denial of the Motion.
First, the Motion is moot. For the reasons stated in the Court’s September 1, 2011 Order,
12
ECF No. 1081, Oracle may not pursue hypothetical license damages in this case, and the new trial
13
will be limited to determining lost profits and infringer’s profits only. Oracle’s Motion seeks to
14
revisit the Court’s ruling addressing the admissibility of evidence that Oracle would offer solely
15
in support of its precluded hypothetical license claim. There is no need for this Court to
16
reconsider its orders on evidence that is irrelevant to the new proceedings.
17
Second, Oracle’s Motion fails to comply with the Local Rules. Where a court’s ruling
18
has not resulted in a final judgment or order, a party may seek reconsideration of the ruling under
19
Civil Local Rule 7-9, but must first obtain leave of the court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a)-(b) (citing Fed. R.
20
Civ. P. 54(b)). The Rule allows reconsideration under only three circumstances: (1) where, at the
21
time of the motion, “a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to
22
the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought”; (2) the
23
“emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order”; or
24
(3) “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments”
25
presented to the court before the order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Civil Local Rule 7-9 also expressly
26
prohibits the repetition of “any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of
27
or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered. Any
28
party who violates this restriction shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(c).
SVI-107880v1
-1-
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ORACLE’S MOT.
FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOT. FOR RECONSID.
Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)
1
Courts may summarily deny motions that are not filed in compliance with the Local Rules.
2
Grove v. Wells Fargo Fin. Cal., Inc., 606 F.3d 577, 582 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding district court’s
3
denial of motion to tax costs that was not in compliance with court’s local rules); Elder-Evins v.
4
Casey, No. C 09-05775 SBA, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103080, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2011)
5
(denying motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration for failing to show any of three
6
conditions required for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9).
7
Here, Oracle does not argue that it is entitled to reconsideration on the grounds of newly
8
discovered facts or an intervening change in controlling law. Instead, Oracle asserts that the
9
Court should reconsider its evidentiary ruling on cross-sell/up-sell projections due to a “manifest
10
failure” by the Court to consider dispositive legal arguments. In support of this claim, Oracle
11
offers only recycled arguments, which, by Oracle’s own admission, the Court considered and
12
rejected in making its rulings. There is no basis for Oracle’s contention that the Court failed to
13
consider the parties’ detailed arguments on these issues, on which the Court entertained extensive
14
written and oral argument. Salinas v. City of San Jose, No. 5:09-cv-04410 EJD, 2011 U.S. Dist.
15
LEXIS 94354, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2011). Oracle’s repetition of arguments also violates
16
Local Rule 7-9(c)’s express prohibition. Because Oracle fails to make any of the three showings
17
required by Civil Local Rule 7-9, the Motion is DENIED.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
21
22
DATED: ________________________
By:
Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
23
24
25
26
27
28
SVI-107880v1
-2-
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ORACLE’S MOT.
FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOT. FOR RECONSID.
Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?