Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 893

Administrative Motion to Extend Trial Date filed by Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc., Siebel Systems, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Stipulation to Permit Plaintiffs to File Administrative Motion to Extend Trial Date)(Holtzman, Steven) (Filed on 9/20/2010) Modified on 9/21/2010 (cp, COURT STAFF).

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 893

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: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (SBN 144177) FRED NORTON (SBN 224725) 1999 Harrison St., Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [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: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ORACLE USA, INC., et al., CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) v. Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND TRIAL DATE

SAP AG, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND TRIAL DATE
Dockets.Justia.com

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
1

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11,1 Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation and Siebel Systems, Inc. ("Plaintiffs" or "Oracle") respectfully request that trial in this matter, scheduled to commence on November 1, 2010, be continued to November 8, 2010. Given the parties' recent stipulation regarding trial time to be devoted to the presentation of evidence and argument, starting the trial on November 8 should still permit the trial to conclude within the original six-week period set aside by the Court. The reason for Plaintiffs' request is simple: their lead trial counsel, David Boies, will be in trial in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York starting on October 18, 2010. See Declaration of Steven C. Holtzman in Support of Administrative Motion to Extend Trial ("Holtzman Decl."), ¶ 2 & Ex. 1. For reasons beyond Mr. Boies' control, that trial was recently confirmed to take place, and is scheduled to last until November 1 or even several days beyond November 1. See id. Although Mr. Boies requires nearly no time between trials, it will be physically impossible for him to be on both coasts at the same time. Plaintiffs have met and conferred with Defendants regarding this request, explaining the circumstances surrounding and reasons for the request, and asking that Defendants consent to Plaintiffs' request for the one-week continuance if nothing else as a matter of professional courtesy. See Holtzman Decl., ¶ 3 & Ex. 2 (September 14, 2010 email from Steve Holtzman, counsel for Plaintiffs, to counsel for Defendants). Plaintiffs further explained that given the parties' agreement to limit the presentation of evidence and argument to 36 hours per side, moving the trial start date to November 8 would still result in the trial being completed within the six-week period originally allotted by the Court for the trial, therefore presumably not disrupting any long-planned schedules or resulting in any prejudice. Id. While stating that a one-week continuance is ordinarily "immaterial," Defendants have

See Dkt. No. 84 (Court's Case Management and Pretrial Order) at paragraph E ("No provision of this order may be changed except by written order of this court upon its own motion or upon motion of one or more parties made pursuant to Civil. L. R. 7-11 with a showing of good cause. Parties may file a formal brief, but a letter brief will suffice. The requesting party shall serve the opposing party on the same day the motion is filed and the opposing party shall submit a response as soon as possible but no later than three days after service."). 1
Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND TRIAL DATE

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

declined to agree to Plaintiffs' request. See Holtzman Decl., ¶ 4 & Ex. 3 (September 16, 2010 email from Greg Lanier, counsel for Defendants, to counsel for Plaintiffs). Defendants based their objection to the request on their concern that (1) moving the trial back a week would inconvenience SAP executives by disrupting their business responsibilities at "the very busy end of the calendar year"; and (2) had Plaintiffs raised the issue during the settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Spero on September 7, doing so would have affected Defendants' willingness to agree to the 36-hour stipulation. Id. Neither objection has merit. As explained above, until September 7 Defendants and Plaintiffs both had to plan for a trial lasting six weeks starting November 1, 2010. With the 36hour stipulation in place, trial will be complete within this time period, thereby altering no longstanding plans. Moreover, as Plaintiffs have reminded Defendants, Plaintiffs in fact did raise the issue on September 7, resulting in a change to the trial streamlining stipulation being negotiated that day. See Holtzman Decl., ¶¶ 5-6 & Exs. 4 & 5 (September 17, 2010 and September 18, 2010 emails between counsel). Specifically, whereas the draft stipulation prior to September 7 specifically stated that "Trial remains on the currently scheduled start date but shortened. . . ," on September 7 Plaintiffs proposed that the stipulation be changed to read simply "The length of trial is shortened . . . ."2 Defendants agreed to this language and signed the stipulation in that form.3 See Holtzman Decl., ¶ 7 & Ex. 6. As Plaintiffs have subsequently reminded Defendants, in addition to the discussion with Magistrate Judge Spero on the subject, this specific change to the language of the stipulation made clear that a November 1 start date was not acceptable to
2

In separate discussions with Magistrate Judge Spero prior to making this change, Plaintiffs stated they want to make the request more explicit in the draft, but Magistrate Judge Spero requested that they not do so, on the grounds that the actual trial start date was of course up to the Court. See Holtzman Decl., ¶ 5 & Ex. 4 (September 17, 2010 email from Steve Holtzman, counsel for Plaintiffs, to counsel for Defendants). Paragraph 3 of the stipulation does refer to "the trial scheduled for November 1, 2010," see Holtzman Decl., ¶ 7 & Ex. 6, but that is a recitation of the current schedule, not an agreement that trial would "remain" on that date, which had been included in earlier drafts but was deleted during the day on September 7. 2
Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

3

PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND TRIAL DATE

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

Plaintiffs. See Holtzman Decl., ¶¶ 5-6 & Exs. 4 & 5 (September 17, 2010 and September 18, 2010 emails between counsel). Defendants have refused to reconsider their position. For the above stated reasons, Oracle respectfully requests the Court to grant its administrative motion to continue trial for one week. DATED: September 20, 2010 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Steven C. Holtzman Steven C. Holtzman Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corp., and Siebel Systems, Inc.

3

Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND TRIAL DATE