Innospan Corp v. Intuit et al

Filing 192

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE RULE 72 MOTION, Order by Hon. William Alsup denying 190 Motion for Leave to File.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
INNOSPAN CORP.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

No. C 10-04422 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

14

INTUIT, INC., MINT SOFTWARE, INC.,
SHASTA VENTURES GP, LLC, and
DOES 1–20,

15

ORDER DENYING
LEAVE TO FILE
RULE 72 MOTION

Defendants.
/

16
17

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
/

18
19

All discovery disputes in this action were referred to Magistrate Judge Spero. On

20

July 7, 2011, Judge Spero partially granted defendants’ motion for sanctions for plaintiff’s

21

discovery abuse. The July 7 order required plaintiff to reimburse defendants for the reasonable

22

fees and costs they incurred litigating the sanctions motion and related discovery disputes

23

(Dkt. No. 181). On August 4, following briefing on the proper amount of the payment, Judge

24

Spero ordered plaintiff to pay defendants $272,603.10 in attorney’s fees and costs (Dkt. No. 189).

25

Plaintiff now seeks leave to challenge this monetary sanction in a motion under FRCP 72(a)

26

(Dkt. No. 190). Defendants oppose (Dkt. No. 191). Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

27
28

First, the majority of plaintiff’s arguments are untimely. Although plaintiff’s request
purports to target the August 4 order, all but one of plaintiff’s objections address the July 7 order

1

imposing sanctions, not the August 4 order determining the amount of the payment. Objections

2

under Rule 72(a) must be filed within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the

3

challenged order. Plaintiff’s counsel received a copy of the July 7 order the day it was filed but

4

did not file the instant request until August 16. That was too late.

5

Second, plaintiff’s lone objection to the amount of monetary sanctions found reasonable in

6

the August 4 order is not persuasive. That objection is not adequately explained and does not

7

show good cause for suspecting that Judge Spero was clearly erroneous in finding $272,603.10 —

8

less than two-thirds of defendant’s requested sanction amount — to be reasonable. Moreover,

9

defendants’ explanation of the figures cited by plaintiff are credible.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Good cause not having been shown, plaintiff’s request to file a Rule 72 motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff must comply with all aspects of the July 7 and August 4 orders.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: August 18, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2