Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

MOTION Administrative Motion to Extend Period for Review of Oracle's Objections to Order of Discovery Magistrate Pursuant to Local Rule 72-2

N.D. Cal.October 1, 2009

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 Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 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., Plaintiffs, v. SAP AG, et al., Defendants. CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND PERIOD FOR REVIEW OF ORACLE’S OBJECTIONS TO ORDER PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 72-2 Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document501 Filed10/01/09 Page1 of 3 Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al Doc. 501 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 2 Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-11, Plaintiffs hereby move for administrative relief extending the time pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2 within which the District Court Judge may review a Magistrate’s Order. Oracle brings this motion, in an abundance of caution, because of the current unavailability of the District Court and the importance of the legal rights affected by the Order in question. Given those two factors, there is good cause here to grant Oracle’s administrative motion for relief to allow its Objections to be considered on the merits. On September 17, 2009 Magistrate Laporte issued an Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Preclusion of Certain Damages Evidence Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) and 16(f) (“Order”). Plaintiffs received the Order via the Northern District’s ECF notification system that afternoon. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2 and Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6, Plaintiffs filed Objections to Order of Discovery Magistrate Granting Defendants’ Motion for Preclusion of Certain Damages Evidence (“Objections”) on October 1, 2009 (ten business days from receipt of Order). Civil Local Rule 72-2 provides that “[i]f no order denying the motion or setting a briefing schedule is made within 15 days of filing the objection, the objection shall be deemed denied.” Therefore, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2 and Fed R. Civ. Proc. 6, Plaintiffs’ Objections may be deemed automatically denied, and the Clerk may issue a notification, if the Court has not established a briefing schedule or explicitly denied the Objections by October 16, 2009. The Court’s calendar, however, indicates that Judge Hamilton is unavailable until October 15, 2009, providing just one court day after her return for consideration of Plaintiffs’ Objections prior to the Clerk’s notification of an automatic denial pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2. To provide the Court adequate time to consider Plaintiffs’ Objections before the potential intervention of an automatic denial, and in the interest of fairness, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the clerk not automatically deem Plaintiffs’ Objections denied until October 26th, 2009, adding ten calendar days to the period for potential review pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2. Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document501 Filed10/01/09 Page2 of 3 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 3 Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION DATED: October 1, 2009 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP By: /s/ Bree Hann Bree Hann Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, Oracle EMEA Limited, and Siebel Systems, Inc. Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document501 Filed10/01/09 Page3 of 3