Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 383

*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 384 . *** Proposed Order re 380 Memorandum in Opposition [Proposed] Order Granting Defendants' Administrative Motion to Permit Defendants to File Under Seal Plaintiffs' Documents Supporting Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend by SAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Lanier, Tharan) (Filed on 7/29/2009) Modified on 7/30/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF).

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 383

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document383

Filed07/29/09 Page1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ORACLE USA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAP AG, et al., Defendants. Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL) [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

SVI-70805v1

-1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Dockets.Justia.com

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document383

Filed07/29/09 Page2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Before this Court is Plaintiffs' July 15, 2009 Motion to Amend Complaint ("Motion") seeking leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint to add four categories of proposed amendments: (1) amendments relating to Siebel software and certain post-litigation conduct, (2) amendments relating to the addition of seven copyright registrations for Oracle database technology, (3) amendments relating to the addition of two copyright registrations for PeopleSoft and J.D. Edwards "Database[s] of Documentary Support" ("Knowledge Management registrations") and (4) amendments relating to the addition of 20 historic PeopleSoft copyright registrations. Having considered the Motion, and pursuant to Rule 16(b) and Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and paragraph five of the June 11, 2009 Revised Case Management and Pretrial Order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: As to categories (2), (3) and (4) of the proposed amendments described above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion pursuant to Rule 16(b) because Plaintiffs' lack of diligence in moving to amend fails to establish good cause to modify the scheduling order. Additionally, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion pursuant to Rule 15(a) because the Motion has been brought in bad faith, after undue delay, to the prejudice Defendants and the interests of justice. As to category (1) of the proposed amendments described above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: ________________________ By: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton United States District Court Judge

SVI-70805v1

-1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)