FreecycleSunnyvale v. The Freecycle Network

Filing 96

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 86 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2007)

FreecycleSunnyvale v. The Freecycle Network

Doc. 96

Case 4:06-cv-00324-CW

Document 96

Filed 08/24/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. THE FREECYCLE NETWORK, INC., an Arizona corporation, Defendant/Counterclaimant. / FREECYCLESUNNYVALE, a California unincorporated association, Plaintiff/CounterclaimDefendant, No. C 06-00324 CW ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [DOCKET NO. 86] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant FreecycleSunnyvale's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's August 10, 2007 order is GRANTED. Plaintiff claims that

good cause exists to allow it to proceed on its motion for summary judgment based on its naked licensing arguments even though Defendant is not now prepared to file a cross-motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the Court will consider Plaintiff's motion

for reconsideration. Defendant and Counterclaimant the Freecycle Network opposes Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Having considered all of

the papers filed by the parties and the content of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 4:06-cv-00324-CW

Document 96

Filed 08/24/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

for reconsideration.

Plaintiff demonstrates that resolution of its

motion might significantly narrow the issues in the case for trial and therefore prevent the parties from requiring expert witnesses. Defendant argues that it will be prejudiced by consideration of the motion at this stage of discovery but does not provide evidence that it will. Defendant's counsel declares, "Without conducting

this pertinent deposition discovery, and subsequent expert discovery, [Defendant] was unable to file its motion for summary judgment as a cross-motion . . . by August 9, 2007." Bandyopadhyay Declaration ¶ 4 (emphasis added). Further, Plaintiff

provides evidence that Defendant has no outstanding discovery requests. See Corgill Declaration ¶ 3.

Defendant argues that it likely will need expert testimony to oppose Plaintiff's motion on naked licensing. However, Defendant

cites no case in which expert testimony was used on the issue and the Court is aware of none. Further, Plaintiff does not cite any If Defendant continues to believe

expert testimony in its motion.

it needs expert testimony to support its opposition to Plaintiff's motion, it may include a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of 56(f) with its opposition. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment will be heard on September 27, 2007 at 2:00 pm. Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's reply, if any,

motion shall be filed by September 6. shall be filed by September 13.

Plaintiff may file another motion for summary judgment on January 17, 2008, noticed for hearing on February 28, 2008 and Defendant may file a cross-motion. 2 If Plaintiff does not file a

Case 4:06-cv-00324-CW

Document 96

Filed 08/24/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

motion for summary judgment on January 17, Defendant may do so on January 24. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

8/24/07

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

3