Innospan Corp v. Intuit et al

Filing 304

ORDER DENYING PRECIS REQUEST re 302 Letter filed by Innospan Corp, 303 Response ( Non Motion ), filed by Mint Software Inc, Intuit. Signed by Judge Alsup on February 24, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
INNOSPAN CORPORATION,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

No. C 10-04422 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING
PRÉCIS REQUEST

14

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

15

Defendants.
/

16
17

A month before plaintiff Innospan Corporation’s deadline to pay discovery sanctions, it

18

submits a précis request to file a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal of — or, in the

19

alternative, a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from — the sanction orders. Because plaintiff fails to

20

identify any possible ground for satisfying the applicable statutory standards, the request

21

is DENIED.

22

An interlocutory appeal is appropriate when (1) there is a controlling question of law, (2)

23

there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion, and (3) an immediate appeal may

24

materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. 1292; In re Cement

25

Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff’s précis request utterly fails to

26

identify any controlling legal question or any differences of opinion regarding such legal

27

questions. The request to file a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal is DENIED.

28

1

A motion for relief from the sanction orders requires (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise,

2

or excusable neglect, (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not

3

have been discovered, (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party, or (4)

4

any other reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b). Instead of identifying any sufficient grounds for

5

a Rule 60(b) motion, plaintiff’s précis request rehashes arguments already considered and rejected

6

by this Court. First, plaintiff argues that the calculation of monetary sanctions for its discovery

7

abuses was “unfair” because defendant’s preliminary and final requests were too different. This

8

argument has already been rejected by a prior order (Dkt. No. 192). That order found Magistrate

9

Judge Spero’s calculation of the monetary sanction reasonable. This order holds the same.
Second, plaintiff points to emails that were not before Magistrate Judge Spero when he issued the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

sanction orders. This evidence fails to satisfy the Rule 60(b) standard for two glaring reasons:

12

(1) the evidence would have been immaterial to the sanction orders and (2) the emails could have

13

been discovered with reasonable diligence. The evidence would have been immaterial because it

14

does not refute Judge Spero’s findings that plaintiff’s CEO tampered with witness testimony.

15

Also, the evidence could have been discovered with reasonable diligence because it was

16

plaintiff’s own emails. Plaintiff’s failure to discover its own emails shows a lack of reasonable

17

diligence.

18
19

For the reasons stated, plaintiff’s request to file a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal
or, in the alternative, a Rule 60(b) motion for relief is DENIED.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: February 24, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2