Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 414

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 348 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint; finding as moot 352 Alternative Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2009)

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 ORACLE USA, INC., et al., 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. 10 No. C 07-1658 PJH ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

United States District Court

SAP AG, et al., 11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants. _______________________________/ Before the court is plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. The motion is GRANTED. Given the discussion at the May 28, 2009 case management conference, the court clearly anticipated that plaintiffs would seek to amend the complaint to add allegations beyond those relating to the "Siebel claims." Moreover, the parties stipulated to all the dates set in the June 11, 2009 revised case management and pretrial order, including the provision that "[s]hould [p]laintiffs intend to seek any other amendment to the complaint, then [p]laintiffs shall make the appropriate motion[s] no later than August 26, 2009." Thus, the motion was both anticipated and timely. In addition, even in the absence of the discussion at the May 28, 2009 case management conference, and, in the revised case management and pretrial order, of the provision authorizing the filing of a motion for leave to amend the complaint, the court would have considered plaintiff's motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), not under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). The prohibition against filing motions to amend pleadings fewer than 90 days before the close of fact discovery is a standard provision in the court's case management and pretrial orders. Having agreed to extend the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

fact discovery cut-off date (and most other pretrial dates), the court anticipated that the date for filing motions to amend pleadings would follow, and would become 90 days before the new deadline for fact discovery. Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend is ordinarily granted unless the amendment is futile, would cause undue prejudice to the defendants, or is sought by plaintiffs in bad faith or with a dilatory motive. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Defendants have not established that the motion should be denied based on any of these grounds. Finally, in anticipation of dispositive motions in the near future, the court takes this opportunity to advise the parties that the hyperbolic and vituperative language, the many aspersions cast on opposing counsel, and the repeated accusations of misrepresentation that appear throughout the papers filed by both sides, do nothing to advance either side's case or otherwise assist the court in resolving the dispute, and serve only to annoy the court and to add to general incivility that seems to pervade the practice of civil law these days. The court expects to see less of this in future briefs. The parties should be further advised that a motion for leave to file an amended complaint should not under any circumstances necessitate the filing of a three-inch stack of paper. The date for the hearing on plaintiffs' motion, previously set for Wednesday, August 19, 2009, is VACATED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 14, 2009 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

2