Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 679

Declaration of Holly A. House in Support of 677 Memorandum in Opposition, filed byOracle EMEA Limited, Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc., Siebel Systems, 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, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47, # 48 Exhibit 48, # 49 Exhibit 49, # 50 Exhibit 50, # 51 Exhibit 51, # 52 Exhibit 52, # 53 Exhibit 53, # 54 Exhibit 54, # 55 Exhibit 55, # 56 Exhibit 56, # 57 Exhibit 57, # 58 Exhibit 58, # 59 Exhibit 59, # 60 Exhibit 60, # 61 Exhibit 61, # 62 Exhibit 62, # 63 Exhibit 63, # 64 Exhibit 64, # 65 Exhibit 65, # 66 Exhibit 66, # 67 Exhibit 67, # 68 Exhibit 68, # 69 Exhibit 69, # 70 Exhibit 70, # 71 Exhibit 71, # 72 Exhibit 72, # 73 Exhibit 73, # 74 Exhibit 74, # 75 Exhibit 75, # 76 Exhibit 76, # 77 Exhibit 77, # 78 Exhibit 78, # 79 Exhibit 79, # 80 Exhibit 80, # 81 Exhibit 81, # 82 Exhibit 82, # 83 Exhibit 83, # 84 Exhibit 84, # 85 Exhibit 85, # 86 Exhibit 86, # 87 Exhibit 87, # 88 Exhibit 88, # 89 Exhibit 89, # 90 Exhibit 90, # 91 Exhibit 91, # 92 Exhibit 92, # 93 Exhibit 93, # 94 Exhibit 94, # 95 Exhibit 95, # 96 Exhibit 96, # 97 Exhibit 97, # 98 Exhibit 98, # 99 Exhibit 99, # 100 Exhibit 100, # 101 Exhibit 101, # 102 Exhibit 102, # 103 Exhibit 103, # 104 Exhibit 104, # 105 Exhibit 105, # 106 Exhibit 106, # 107 Exhibit 107, # 108 Exhibit 108, # 109 Exhibit 109, # 110 Exhibit 110, # 111 Exhibit 111, # 112 Exhibit 147, # 113 Exhibit 159, # 114 Exhibit 208, # 115 Exhibit 210, # 116 Exhibit 212, # 117 Exhibit 219, # 118 Exhibit 225, # 119 Exhibit 390, # 120 Exhibit 392, # 121 Exhibit 395, # 122 Exhibit 414, # 123 Exhibit 436, # 124 Exhibit 455, # 125 Exhibit 473, # 126 Exhibit 513, # 127 Exhibit 594, # 128 Exhibit 596, # 129 Exhibit 608, # 130 Exhibit 707, # 131 Exhibit 738, # 132 Exhibit 748, # 133 Exhibit 934, # 134 Exhibit 1008, # 135 Exhibit 1634, # 136 Exhibit 1637, # 137 Exhibit 1684)(Related document(s) 677 ) (House, Holly) (Filed on 3/31/2010)

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: [phone] Facsimile: 415.393.2286 [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) JENNIFER GLOSS (SBN 154227) 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 650.506.7144 [e-mail] [e-mail] 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,

No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: Time: Place: Judge: May 5, 2010 9:00 am 3rd Floor, Courtroom 3 Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton

SAP AG, et al., Defendants.

07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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 DENIED.

On May 5, 2010, the Court held a hearing on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment brought by Defendants SAP AG, SAP America, Inc., and TomorrowNow, Inc. (collectively "Defendants"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Civil Local Rules 7-2 - 7-5 and 56-1. Having reviewed the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments, evidence and relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as follows: Plaintiff Oracle EMEA Ltd. Plaintiff Oracle OEMEA Ltd. ("OEMEA") brings four California claims against Defendants. Oracle's other plaintiffs bring California claims in addition to two federal claims for copyright infringement and for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. There is no dispute that Defendants twice admitted in their Answers to Oracle's Third and Fourth Amended Complaints that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over OEMEA and OEMEA's pendent state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. There is also no dispute that Defendants twice admitted that "a substantial part of the events giving rise to the dispute occurred" in California. Moreover, Oracle has established extensive California conduct that relates to OEMEA's claims. Because there is no genuine dispute that OEMEA has suffered from California-based wrongful conduct, OEMEA's claims are not wholly extraterritorial as Defendants allege, and OEMEA's claims are properly before this Court. See, e.g., Solid Host, NL v. Namecheap, Inc., 652 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1122 n.67 (C.D. Cal. 2009). Defendants' due process argument fails for these same reasons. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to OEMEA is

Oracle's Lost Profits Claims Defendants next seek a ruling that, as matter of law, an Oracle entity is not permitted to recover the lost profits of an affiliated plaintiff or non-plaintiff entity. However, for a given cause of action, no Oracle plaintiff has asserted a claim to another entity's lost profits, and thus this Court declines to issue the advisory opinion sought by Defendants' Motion. United
07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 887 F.2d 207, 214 (9th Cir. 1989) ("[C]ourts should not render advisory opinions upon issues which are not pressed before the court, precisely framed and necessary for decision."); Sun Microsystems Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., 608 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1206 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (declining, on summary judgment, to "conclusively decide [the] legal impropriety" of a theory of liability that "defendants presuppose[d]" was being asserted by plaintiffs). For the same reason, Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking an advisory opinion on lost profits of non-plaintiff entities is also DENIED. Recovery of Saved Development Costs Defendants' next Motion relates to Oracle's use of "saved development costs" in support of its damages claims. Oracle has confirmed that, for its state law claims, Oracle seeks to recover saved development costs only under its unjust enrichment/restitution claim. Under California law, Oracle may recover saved development costs on a theory of unjust enrichment/restitution. Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Group, Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 21 (2005). This Court declines to issue an advisory opinion regarding a party's ability to seek saved development costs pursuant to Oracle's other California law claims, as Oracle does not seek them. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 887 F.2d at 214. Defendants also reargue whether saved development costs are relevant to a "value of use" measurement of actual damages pursuant to Oracle's copyright claim. This issue was previously argued, considered, and decided by this Court's January 28, 2010 Order on Defendants' previous Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiffs' Hypothetical License Damages Claim. Defendants have not sought reconsideration of that Order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, nor could Defendants meet Local Rule 7-9's requirement for reconsideration. Using the same arguments and authorities, Defendants reargue their previous Motion without moving for reconsideration; this is improper and sanctionable. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding "saved development costs" is DENIED. 2
07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

CDAFA and Trespass to Chattels Claims Defendants next argue that Oracle is not entitled to recover damages under its California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act claim ("CDAFA"), pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 502, and its trespass to chattels claims, because Defendants claim that Oracle has not disclosed calculations for these claims. While styled as a Rule 56 motion, this appears to be an improper and unsubstantiated motion for preclusion sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Cf. Hsieh v. Peake, No. 06-5281, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23649, at *59-60 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2008) (finding "an opposition to a motion for summary judgment is not a proper place for a Rule 37 motion," that "[i]n any event, a Rule 37 motion must be filed as a separate motion, and in accordance with the local rules regarding the filing of motions," and that "any Rule 37 motion should have been directed to the magistrate judge to whom the court referred all discovery disputes). Moreover, the Court finds that Oracle has adequately quantified all of the damages it seeks under these claims, as set forth its numerous written discovery responses, initial disclosures, Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) testimony, and its expert damages report. Thus, even had Defendants brought a properly noticed Rule 37 motion before the assigned discovery magistrate, Defendants could claim no prejudice. Defendants' additional argument that any damages recoverable under the CDAFA are limited to "investigation costs" is also unfounded. The legislative history of the CDAFA reveals that the 2000 amendments cited by Defendants were intended to expand the civil remedies available under the statute, not to limit them. See Cal. Bill Analysis, A.B. 2727 Assem., 8/07/2000 (intent is to "expand civil remedies available for computer crimes"). Based on this and the other legislative history and legal authorities Oracle cites, the Court finds that the CDAFA envisions "compensatory damages" to include "the amount that will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused," including lost profits. Cal. Civ. Code § 3333; see Fibreboard Paper Prods. Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists, 227 Cal.App.2d 675, 702 (1964). Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment related to Oracle's trespass to chattels and CDAFA claims thus is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3
07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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 4
07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

Dated: ____________, 2010

________________________________ Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton United States District Court Judge

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT