Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1151

Declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier in Support of 1150 Opposition/Response to Motion,, 1149 Opposition/Response to Motion, Declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier in Support of Defendants' Oppositions to Oracle's Motions for Leave to File Motions for Reconsideration Regarding (1) Saved Development Costs and (2) Up-Sell and Cross-Sell Projections, and Motion for Clarification filed bySAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14)(Related document(s) 1150 , 1149 ) (Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 5/1/2012)

EXHIBIT 14

Page 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FLORENCE MARTHA
BEARDSLEE, Defendant.
No. CR-94-0186-DLJ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105667

December 22, 2008, Decided
December 22, 2008, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Post-conviction relief
denied at United States v. Beardslee, 2010 U.S. App.
LEXIS 5163 (9th Cir. Cal., Mar. 11, 2010)
PRIOR HISTORY: Beardslee v. United States, 2008
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79347 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 19, 2008)
COUNSEL: [*1] For Florence Martha Beardslee,
Defendant: C. David Eyster, LEAD ATTORNEY, David
Mervin Kindopp, Duncan M. James, Law Office of
Duncan M. James, Ukiah, CA.
For USA, Plaintiff: Keslie Anne Stewart, LEAD
ATTORNEY, U.S. Attorney's Office, Oakland, CA;
Stephen Lawrence Johnson, U.S. Attorney's Office, San
Francisco, CA.
JUDGES: D. Lowell Jensen, United States District
Judge.
OPINION BY: D. Lowell Jensen
OPINION

ORDER
On November 3, 2008, defendant Florence Martha
Beardslee ("Beardslee") filed a motion for

reconsideration of the Court's order dated September 19,
2008, in which the Court denied Beardslee's motion for a
stay of debt collection efforts by the United States. On
November 13, 2008, the government filed an opposition.
Having considered the papers submitted and the
applicable law, the Court hereby DENIES the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background and Procedural History
On May 30, 2008, Beardslee filed a motion to stay
debt collection efforts by the United States. On
September 19, 2008, the Court denied Beardslee's
motion. The Court noted that it had jurisdiction to stay
Beardslee's monetary penalties "on any terms considered
appropriate." See Fed. R. Crim. P. 38(c), (e)(1). The
Court denied relief, however, in [*2] light of Beardslee's
failure to identify any justification for a stay other than
the following conclusory assertions: that (1) she
anticipated success on appeal; (2) a stay was "in the
interests of justice;" and (3) the government's collection
efforts were retaliatory against her.
On November 3, 2008, Beardslee filed the instant
motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's September
19, 2008 order. In the present motion, Beardslee asks the
Court to enjoin the government from offsetting
Beardslee's Social Security payments on the following

Page 2
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105667, *2

grounds: (1) Beardslee is likely to succeed in her appeal;
and (2) Beardslee is debilitated from a recent surgery and
will suffer hardship unless she receives her full Social
Security payments.
B. Legal Standard
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9(a) of the Northern
District of California, no party may make a motion for
reconsideration without first obtaining leave of the Court
to file the motion. Civ. L. R. 7-9(a). In seeking leave, the
party must show:
(1) That at the time of the motion for
leave, a material difference in fact or law
exists from that which was presented to
the Court before entry of the interlocutory
order for which reconsideration is sought.
[*3] The party also must show that in the
exercise of reasonable diligence the party
applying for reconsideration did not know
such fact or law at the time of the
interlocutory order; or

Third, under Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), Beardslee has not
demonstrated a manifest failure by the Court to consider
material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously
presented to the Court. In her earlier motion, Beardslee
presented no material facts or any legal arguments.
Accordingly, this basis for granting leave is unavailable
to Beardslee.

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to
consider material facts or dispositive legal
arguments which were presented to the
Court before such interlocutory order.
Civ. L. R. 7-9(b). No motion for leave may repeat any
argument which the party previously made in connection
with the contested matter. Civ. L. R. 7-9(c).
II. DISCUSSION
Request

Leave

to

Move

First, under Local Rule 7-9(b)(1), Beardslee has not
cited any material difference in fact or law from what she
previously presented to the Court. Althouqh the instant
motion identifies, for the first time, the specific types of
financial hardship which [*4] would befall Beardslee if
the Court declines to issue a stay, Beardslee has made no
showinq that she was unaware of these circumstances at
the time of her previous motion. See Civ. L. R. 7-9(b)(1).
Accordinqly, Beardslee has not satisfied the requirements
of Local Rule 7-9(b)(1).
Second, Beardslee has not satisfied the requirement
of Local Rule 7-9(b)(2) that she clearly identify new
material facts or a chanqe in law which occurred after the
Court issued its order. Beardslee has not identified any
chanqe in law whatsoever. As for chanqes in fact,
Beardslee has identified one potentially relevant
development, her recent surgery. This surgery is not a
factual change unless it took place after the Court's
September 19 order. Beardslee has not established that
this alleged factual change did not exist at the time of the
last order.

(2) The emergence of new material
facts or a change of law occurring after the
time of such order; or

A. Failure to
Reconsideration

a request would have lacked merit.

for

III. CONCLUSION
Based [*5] on the foregoing, the Court finds that
Beardslee has not complied with the Local Rules and
DENIES the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: December 22, 2008

Beardslee failed to seek leave to file her motion for
reconsideration. This failure alone is sufficient for the
Court to deny Beardslee's motion for reconsideration.
B. Merits of Beardslee's Motion
Even if Beardslee had filed a request for leave, such

/s/ D. Lowell Jensen
D. Lowell Jensen
United States District Judge