Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1162

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 1120 Motion for Clarification; denying 1122 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration; denying 1124 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2012)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
7

ORACLE USA, INC., et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

SAP AG, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

v.

10

United States District Court

9

No. C 07-1658 PJH
ORDER

Defendants.
_______________________________/

12
13

The motion of plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., et al., (“Oracle”) for clarification is DENIED,

14

as the court does not agree that there is anything in the September 1, 2011 and September

15

16, 2011 orders that requires clarification. The court refers Oracle to the discussion in the

16

September 1, 2011 order at 10-15. To the extent that the motion for clarification is

17

intended as a motion for leave to seek reconsideration of the September 1, 2011 and

18

September 16, 2011 orders, it is DENIED for failure to comply with the requirements of Civil

19

Local Rule 7-9.

20

Oracle’s motion for leave to seek reconsideration of the November 8, 2010 order

21

excluding evidence of lost cross-sell and up-sell evidence, and motion for leave to seek

22

reconsideration of the September 30, 2010 order excluding evidence of saved development

23

costs, are DENIED as moot in light of the ruling on the motion for clarification, and also for

24

failure to comply with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-9.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: May 15, 2012

28

______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge