Petzilla, Inc. v. Anser Innovation LLC

Filing 40

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting [35-3] Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration; and 37 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response (to Anser's Motion to Dismiss). Petzilla's Opposition/Response due by 8/11/2014. Anser's Reply due by 8/18/2014. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

PETZILLA, INC.,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ANSER INNOVATION LLC,

12

Defendant.
___________________________________/

No. C-14-1354 EMC
ORDER GRANTING (1) PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION;
AND (2) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
RESPONSE
(Docket Nos. 35-3, 37)

13
14
15

Currently pending before the Court is Petzilla’s motion seeking leave to seek reconsideration

16

of the Court’s order regarding jurisdictional discovery and motion for an extension of time to file a

17

response to Anser’s motion to dismiss. Having considered the parties’ papers, the Court DENIES

18

Petzilla’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The Court GRANTS in part

19

Petzilla’s request for an extension of time to file its response.

20

A.

21

Legal Standard
In the absence of a manifest failure of the Court, a party seeking leave to file a motion for

22

reconsideration must show a material difference in fact or law that either existed at the time of the

23

interlocutory order in question (but of which the party did not, in the exercise of reasonable

24

diligence, know about) or that emerged after the interlocutory order. See Civ. L. R. 7-9(b).

25

B.

26
27
28

Material Difference in Fact
In this case, Petzilla points to alleged inconsistencies between Anser’s CEO’s prior

declaration and the jurisdictional discovery it obtained. Petzilla argues that these alleged

1

inconsistencies amount to a material difference in fact that warrants reconsideration of the scope of

2

permissible jurisdictional discovery. See Docket No. 35-3 (Motion for Leave, ¶. 4-8).

3

The possibility of such inconsistencies, however, does not present a material difference in

4

fact. The prior discovery order specifically considered the possibility of inconsistencies between the

5

CEO’s declaration and other documents, including public statements of Anser. See Docket No. 28

6

(Order, p. 2). The Order then defined the scope of permissible discovery, not based on a reading of

7

those particular alleged inconsistencies, but rather in view of case law defining examples of “other

8

activities” that meet the “relate to” requirement for specific personal jurisdiction. See Order, ¶. 3-4.

9

The Court expressly declined to entertain general jurisdiction based on evidence regarding the
volume of sales or pre-orders in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

134 S. Ct. 746 (2014). Id. Petzilla has not offered any reason for the Court to reconsider its prior

12

reasoning on the scope of permissible discovery. Accordingly, the Court declines to grant leave to

13

Petzilla to file a motion for reconsideration.

14

C.

15

Extension of Time
Petzilla seeks an extension of time to file its response to Anser’s motion to dismiss in view of

16

its concerns regarding discovery scope. Petzilla has pointed to an apparently failed attempt to

17

resolve with Anser the timing issue of the filing of its opposition. The Court finds good cause for an

18

extension—not for Petzilla to seek additional discovery beyond the scope of its May 20, 2014

19

Order—but rather to allow Petzilla to take the deposition of Ms. Lavin as anticipated by the Court’s

20

May 20th Order. Moreover, as Anser points out, Petzilla will have the opportunity to address its

21

concerns regarding inconsistencies in Ms. Lavin’s declaration through cross-examination at Ms.

22

Lavin’s deposition.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

1

To allow Petzilla time to take Ms. Lavin’s deposition, the Court GRANTS Petzilla’s motion

2

for an enlargement of time, but extends such time by only one week, unless another time is agreed to

3

by the parties. Unless otherwise agreed to, Petzilla’s opposition shall be due on August 11, 2014,

4

and Anser’s reply will be due on August 18, 2014.

5

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 35-3 and 37.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: August 4, 2014
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

3