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 8

Page 1

WILLIAM LEONARD PICKARD, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
No. C 10-05253 LB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74127

July 8, 2011, Decided
July 8, 2011, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Related proceeding at
Pickard v. DOJ, 653 F.3d 782, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS
15397 (9th Cir. Cal., July 27, 2011)
PRIOR HISTORY: Pickard v. DOJ, 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 61802 (N.D. Cal., June 7, 2011)
COUNSEL: [*1] William Leonard Pickard, Plaintiff,
Pro se, Tucson, AZ.
For Department of Justice, Defendant: Neill Tai Tseng,
LEAD ATTORNEY, United States Attorney's Office,
San Francisco, CA.

(holding that venue was proper in the Eastern District of
Virginia and the District of Arizona). 1 On June 15, 2011,
2 Plaintiff William Pickard timely asked the court to
reconsider its ruling that venue was improper here.
Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 39. In the
alternative, he asked to transfer the case to the District of
Arizona. The government does not object to transfer to
the District of Arizona instead of the Eastern District of
Virginia. Response, ECF No. 41. Accordingly, the court
amends its prior order to transfer the case to the District
of Arizona instead (and to this extent only, grants Mr.
Pickard's motion for reconsideration).

AMENDED ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA AND DENYING
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1
Citations are to the Electronic Case File
("ECF") with pin cites [*2] to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages
at the bottom.
2 Under the "mailbox rule," Mr. Pickard filed his
motion for reconsideration on June 15, 2011
because that is when he placed the motion in
institutional mail. See, e.g., Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266, 270-71, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 101 L. Ed. 2d
245 (1988); Stillman v. Lamarque, 319 F.3d 1199,
1201 (9th Cir. 2003); Proof of Service, ECF No.
39-1 at 2.

The court previously transferred this FOIA case to
the Eastern District of Virginia because venue was
improper here. See 6/7/11 Order, ECF No. 38, at 2, 5

Mr. Pickard also asked for certification of an
interlocutory appeal only if the court denied his motion to
transfer the case to the District of Arizona instead of the

JUDGES: LAUREL BEELER, United States Magistrate
Judge.
OPINION BY: LAUREL BEELER
OPINION

Page 2
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74127, *2

Eastern District of Virginia. The court thus denies the
motion for certification as moot. The court otherwise
denies Mr. Pickard's motion for reconsideration, having
already considered and rejected the general arguments in
its prior order at ECF No. 38.
This disposes of ECF No. 39.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2011
/s/ Laurel Beeler
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge