ATS Products, Inc. v. Ghiorso et al

Filing 298

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman finding as moot 280 Motion to Stay; granting in part and denying in part 281 Motion to Amend/Correct ; (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

ATS PRODUCTS INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
v.
)
)
FRANK GHIORSO, THERMALGUARD )
TECHNOLOGY LLC, THERMALGUARD)
LLC,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
)

No. C10-4880 BZ

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO AMEND FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION

17
18

Defendants move pursuant to Rule 52(b) of the Federal

19

Rules of Civil Procedure to amend the Findings of Fact and

20

Conclusions of Law (“Findings”) and the Permanent Injunction

21

issued on January 27, 2012 (Docket No. 271).1

22

assert that the Findings contain nine errors that either

23

misstate or are not supported by the evidence in the record,

24

and that the Permanent Injunction is improper because it binds

25

parties not before the court and is enforceable for an

Defendants

26
27
28

1

All parties have consented to magistrate judge
jurisdiction for all proceedings including entry of final
judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
1

1

improper length of time.

2

arguments and find that, except to the extent noted in this

3

order, Defendants have failed to establish any factual or

4

legal grounds for their motion to amend.2

5

I have considered Defendants’

Motions under Rule 52(b) are designed to correct findings

6

of fact which are central to the ultimate decision; the Rule

7

is not intended to serve as a vehicle for a rehearing.

8

Fisher v. Cartwright 2011 WL 6025659 (N.D. Cal.); Davis v.

9

Mathews, 450 F. Supp. 308, 318 (E.D. Cal. 1978).

R.C.

Put

10

differently, Rule 52(b) motions are granted in order to

11

correct manifest errors of law or fact or to address newly

12

discovered evidence or controlling case law.

13

Petroleum Co., 791 F.2d 1207, 1219-1220 (5th Cir. 1986);

14

Diebitz v. Arreola, 834 F.Supp. 298, 302 (E.D. Wis. 1993);

15

Clark v. Nix, 578 F. Supp. 1515, 1516 (S.D. Iowa 1984).

16

purpose of Rule 52(b) is to permit a party to move the trial

17

court to clarify or supplement fact findings to enable the

Fontenot v. Mesa

The

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Local Rules of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California were amended on June 2,
2011 to require that any opposition motion to be served and
filed not more than 14 days after the motion is served and
filed. Civ. L.R. 7-3(a). Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-3(a),
Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to the
motion to amend was due no later than March 8, 2012. Plaintiff
filed what it termed an “initial” opposition on that date, and
requested leave to file an “amended” opposition by March 13,
2012. (Docket No. 286.) On March 13, Plaintiff filed an
amended opposition. (Docket No. 288.) Defendants oppose
Plaintiff’s request to file an amended opposition, arguing that
Plaintiff’s claim that it did not become aware of its
obligation to file an opposition until the day it was due is
not excusable given that the ECF docket listing provided
Plaintiff with the opposition deadline. (Docket No. 287.) I
agree. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to file an amended
opposition is DENIED and the amended opposition and all
exhibits filed in conjunction with it will be disregarded.
2

1

appellate court to understand the factual issues determined at

2

trial.

Lewis v. Blackburn, 555 F. Supp. 713, 724 (W.D. N.C.

3

1983).

A party may not use a Rule 52(b) motion to introduce

4

any new facts or legal theories that were available to them at

5

trial, much less re-litigate facts and legal theories that

6

have previously been rejected by the court. Fontenot, 791 F.2d

7

at 1219-1220; Diebitz, 834 F.Supp. at 302.

8

motion to amend a court’s factual and legal findings is

9

properly denied where the proposed additional facts would not

Furthermore, a

10

affect the outcome of the case or are immaterial to the

11

court’s conclusions. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Atropos Island, 777

12

F.2d 1344, 1352 (9th Cir. 1985); Lyons v. Jefferson Bank &

13

Trust, 793 F.Supp. 989, 991 (D. Colo. 1992), aff’d in part,

14

rev’d in part on other grounds, 994 F.2d 716 (10th Cir. 1993);

15

U.S. v. Anderson, 591 F.Supp. 1, 4 (E.D. Wash. 1982), aff’d in

16

part, rev’d in part on other grounds (citing Purer & Co. v.

17

Aktiebolaget Addo, 410 F.2d 871, 878 (9th Cir. 1969)).

18

With respect to most of their challenges, Defendants have

19

failed to establish any factual or legal grounds to support

20

amending those findings.3

21

not be a means for re-litigating issues upon which the moving

22

party did not prevail at trial.

23

I had the benefit of viewing witness demeanor and considered

A motion to amend findings should

Davis, 450 F. Supp. at 317.

24
25
26
27
28

3

Many of Defendants challenges have to do with the
special verdict form submitted to the jury. To the extent,
however, that Defendants accepted the special verdict form and
did not ask for it to be amended to include the types of
findings that Defendants now say the form should have included
(see, e.g., Trial Transcript. Vol 9 at 1212:8-25), Defendants
have waived those arguments.
3

1

the testimony in light of the entire record.

2

disagree with the Findings, but Defendants have not shown that

3

the Findings are unsupported by the evidence.4

4

Tiffany & Co., 416 F. Supp. 224, 244 (N.D. Ill. 1976).

5

evaluated and decided all matters brought forth at trial,

6

which my Findings reflect.

7
8

Defendants may

Evans, Inc. v.
I

That said, to expedite any appeal, the following two
findings are AMENDED as follows:

9

Part of Paragraph 21 now reads:
While working at Shea Tech, Ghiorso had complete
access to the Shea trade secrets. Ghiorso
understood that Shea Tech expected him to keep such
information confidential. The jury found that he
breached that duty with respect to at least one
trade secret and I concur with the jury’s finding.

10
11
12
13

Part of Paragraph 22 now reads:
14
Second, the weight of the testimony established that
it would take many months, if not years, to create a
viable and optimized PRF resin, yet Ghiorso claimed
it was done in a matter of weeks.

15
16
17

With the exception of the amended findings set forth above,

18

Defendants’ motion to amend the Findings is DENIED.
Defendants’ motion to amend the Permanent Injunction is

19
20
4

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Indeed, Defendants have failed to introduce either
new evidence that was not available at trial or a change in the
controlling law that would justify their proposed amendments.
In their proffer, Defendants actually cite exclusively to the
trial transcripts and exhibits in this case, showing that all
of the evidence upon which Defendants rely was available and
presented at trial. Motions to amend findings of fact are
governed by the “clearly erroneous” standard (see Fed. R. Civ.
Pro. 52(a)), and where there are two permissible views of the
evidence, the fact finder’s choice between them cannot be
clearly erroneous. Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564,
574 (1985). This is so even when the findings are based
entirely on documentary evidence. Krehl v. Baskin-Robbins Ice
Cream Co., 664 F.2d 1348, 1352 (9th Cir. 1982). I also note
that many of Defendants’ proposed amendments would not affect
the outcome of the case and are immaterial to my conclusions
(see Weyerhaeuser, 777 F.2d at 1352).
4

1

also DENIED.

Defendants’ have failed to show that the length

2

of the Permanent Injunction is impermissible.

3

Injunction specifically states, “Pursuant to California Civil

4

Code §3426.2(a), Defendants may be relieved from any portion

5

of this injunction by proving to the court that any of the

6

Shea trade secrets referred to in paragraph 57 which they are

7

enjoined from using have ceased to exist as trade secrets.”

8

(Docket No. 271.)

9

the governing statute and is in conformance with similar

The Permanent

This temporal restriction is authorized by

See, e.g., Morlife, Inc.

10

restrictions courts have enforced.

11

v. Perry, 56 Cal. App. 4th 1514 (1997) (stating that the

12

duration of the injunction was “not necessarily forever,”

13

since the court noted in its statement of decision that

14

termination could be sought under Civ. Code, § 3426.2(a)).

15

Moreover, Defendants’ attempt to “clarify” the injunction

16

regarding whether it extends to defendant Thermalguard, LLC,

17

Champion Fiberglass and Chris Fish is not well-taken.

18

Permanent Injunction specifically prohibits each named

19

defendant and “anyone in active concert or in participation

20

with any of them,” who receives notice of the injunction from

21

“[u]sing, copying, modifying, disseminating, making, buying,

22

selling and/or distributing or assisting another in using,

23

copying, modifying, disseminating, making, buying, selling

24

and/or distributing” the listed trade secrets and resins.

25

the extent that either Champion Fiberglass or Chris Fish act

26

in concert with or participate with any of the Defendants by

27

engaging in the enjoined conduct as it pertains to the

28

itemized trade secrets or resins, those individuals or
5

The

To

1

entities may violate the injunction.

2

exclude certain individuals and entities (including a named

3

defendant) from the scope of the injunction runs afoul of its

4

underlying purpose, which is to prohibit the further

5

dissemination of Plaintiff’s trade secrets and protect

6

Plaintiff from further losses to its competitive advantage.

7

Defendants’ attempt to

For the reasons and to the extent set forth above, IT IS

8

ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to amend the Findings and

9

Permanent Injunction is GRANTED IN PART but otherwise DENIED.

10

Defendants’ motion for partial stay of execution of judgment

11

is DENIED as moot.

12

Dated: March 28, 2012

13
14
15

Bernard Zimmerman
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\ATS V. GHIORSO\ORDER ON DS MOT TO AMEND FINDINGS OF FACT
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION v.4.wpd

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6