Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 494

STIPULATION - Stipulated Request and [Proposed] Order Enlarging Time for Oracle to Object to Discovery Order [Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b), Civil L.R. 6-1, 6-2, 7-1, 7-12] by Oracle EMEA Limited, Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc., Siebel Systems, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration)(House, Holly) (Filed on 9/24/2009)

Download PDF
Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al Doc. 494 Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document494 Filed09/24/09 Page1 of 4 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 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP DONN P. PICKETT (SBN 72257) GEOFFREY M. HOWARD (SBN 157468) HOLLY A. HOUSE (SBN 136045) ZACHARY J. ALINDER (SBN 209009) BREE HANN (SBN 215695) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 Telephone: (415) 393-2000 Facsimile: (415) 393-2286 donn.pickett@bingham.com geoff.howard@bingham.com holly.house@bingham.com zachary.alinder@bingham.com bree.hann@bingham.com DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) JENNIFER GLOSS (SBN 154227) 500 Oracle Parkway M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 Telephone: (650) 506-4846 Facsimile: (650) 506-7114 dorian.daley@oracle.com jennifer.gloss@oracle.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, Oracle EMEA Limited, and Siebel Systems, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ORACLE USA, INC., et al., v. Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ENLARGING TIME FOR ORACLE TO OBJECT TO DISCOVERY ORDER [Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b), Civil L.R. 6-1, 6-2, 7-1, 7-12] Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton SAP AG, et al., Defendants. Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ENLARGING TIME FOR ORACLE TO OBJECT TO ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document494 Filed09/24/09 Page2 of 4 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 I. STIPULATED REQUEST TO ENLARGE TIME PER L.R. 6-2 GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR REQUESTED MINIMAL EXTENSION Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, Oracle EMEA Limited and Siebel Systems, Inc. ("Plaintiffs") respectfully submit this stipulated request and [proposed] order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and Civil Local Rules 6-1, 62, 7-1, and 7-12 requesting that the Court enter an Order enlarging the time within which Oracle may object to the September 17, 2009 Discovery Order, Docket No. 482 (the "Discovery Order"). The proposed extension, which Defendants do not oppose, would enlarge the time within which Oracle may object to the Discovery Order by approximately two weeks to, and including, October 19, 2009. Oracle does not believe that this will impact the existing case schedule. See accompanying Declaration of Holly House in Support of Stipulated Request to Enlarge Time to Object to Discovery Order ("House Decl."), 2-4. Oracle requires this brief extension of time to consider whether to file any objection to the Discovery Order and, if so, to draft such objection. The Discovery Order is a detailed 26-page ruling that requires in-depth analysis and careful consideration. Id., 2; see also Order (Docket No. 482). It precludes Plaintiffs from seeking at trial as part of their lost profits measure of damages a variety of types of damages. Id.; see also Order (Docket No. 482). The dollar value associated with the precluded damages is significant. House Decl., 2. Magistrate Laporte issued the Order as a non-dispositive discovery ruling. Id., 3; see also Order (Docket No. 482). Pursuant to Local Rule 72-a, Plaintiffs therefore have only 10 court days from service to file objections. Because of the complexity and importance of the issues at stake in the Order which require serious consideration and analysis by Plaintiffs' inhouse and outside counsel and executives, because of the competing case demands that have tied up Plaintiffs' counsel since issuance of the Order (in particular, that Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Hypothetical [Fair Market 2 Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ENLARGING TIME FOR ORACLE TO OBJECT TO ORDER Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document494 Filed09/24/09 Page3 of 4 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 Value] License Damages was due and filed yesterday (see Docket No. 483)), Plaintiffs' counsel asked Defendants' counsel if they would agree to an extension of Oracle's time to file objections to the Order until Monday October 19, 2009 (i.e. 30 days from electronic receipt of the Order). House Decl., 3. Defendants' counsel do not oppose this extension request and, therefore, have stipulated below to it. Id. Moreover, there have been no prior extensions of time with respect to the Discovery Order at issue here, and the requested time modification will not have any significant impact on the schedule for the case. Id., 4. On these facts, the normal 10 day time period for such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) is insufficient, and good cause exists to order a brief extension of that deadline that will allow Plaintiffs to object to the Discovery Order up to, and including, October 19, 2009. DATED: September 24, 2009 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP By: /s/ Holly A. House Holly A. House Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, Oracle EMEA Limited, and Siebel Systems, Inc. In accordance with General Order No. 45, Rule X, the above signatory attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatory below. DATED: September 24, 2009 JONES DAY By: /s/ Greg Lanier Greg Lanier Attorneys for Defendants SAP AG, SAP America, Inc., and TomorrowNow, Inc. 3 Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ENLARGING TIME FOR ORACLE TO OBJECT TO ORDER Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document494 Filed09/24/09 Page4 of 4 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 Date: ____________, 2009 IT IS SO ORDERED. ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION and GOOD CAUSE appearing to grant the Stipulated Request, the date for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc. et al. to file any objection to the September 17, 2009 Discovery Order, Docket No. 482, shall be extended to, and including, October 19, 2009. __________________________ Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton United States District Judge 4 Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ENLARGING TIME FOR ORACLE TO OBJECT TO ORDER

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?