Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Kornrumpf

Filing 134


Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 No. C 10-2769 CW Plaintiff, v. HOOPS ENTERPRISE LLC; and ANTHONY KORNRUMPF, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Docket No. 133) Defendants. ________________________________/ AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS ________________________________/ 12 13 Defendants and Counter-claimants Hoops Enterprise, LLC, and 14 Anthony Kornrumpf move for leave to file a motion for 15 reconsideration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3). 16 considered the papers submitted by Defendants, the Court DENIES 17 their motion. 18 19 Having BACKGROUND On October 11, 2011, Defendants filed an administrative 20 motion seeking an extension of the fact discovery deadline. 21 that motion, Defendants represented that they sought the extension 22 to enforce the execution of subpoenas on certain third-party 23 companies for copies of contracts relevant to their first sale 24 doctrine affirmative defense and for depositions of individuals at 25 some of these companies. 26 to notice additional depositions of Adobe employees in relation to 27 these contracts, which they were in the process of doing, and to 28 In Defendants also stated that they wanted 1 subpoena at least one additional non-party individual for 2 deposition. 3 thereto, the Court issued an order extending the fact discovery 4 deadline for the limited purpose of executing the third-party 5 subpoenas already issued. After considering that motion and Adobe’s opposition 6 On November 7, 2011, Defendants Hoops Enterprise LLC and 7 Anthony Kornrumpf filed a second administrative motion for an 8 order extending the fact discovery deadline, again in order to 9 notice and take depositions of Adobe employees. On December 1, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 2011, after considering the second administrative motion and 11 Adobe’s opposition, the Court denied the motion and re-iterated 12 that the first order had extended the fact discovery deadline only 13 for the execution of subpoenas already served. 14 On December 1, 2011, Defendants filed a motion seeking leave 15 to file a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order, 16 stating that there had been a manifest failure by the Court to 17 consider facts that showed that Plaintiff had caused the delay, 18 that Defendants had acted diligently at all times, and that the 19 denial of an extension of fact discovery would prejudice 20 Defendants by denying them a fair trial on the merits. 21 LEGAL STANDARD 22 A party may only file a motion for reconsideration of an 23 interlocutory order after obtaining leave of the Court. 24 Local Rule 7-9(a). 25 showings that a party may make to support a motion for leave to 26 file a motion for reconsideration, including: “A manifest failure 27 by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal 28 arguments which were presented to the Court before such Civil Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) sets forth several 2 1 interlocutory order.” 2 leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or 3 written argument made by the applying party in support of or in 4 opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to 5 have reconsidered.” “No motion for Civil Local Rule 7-9(c). 6 7 Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3). DISCUSSION Defendants have only repeated the written arguments that they 8 already made in support of their two administrative motions 9 seeking an extension of the fact discovery deadline, which is United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 impermissible under Civil Local Rule 7-9(c). 11 sufficient for the denial of their motion. 12 This alone is Defendants have also not demonstrated that there has been a 13 manifest failure of the Court to consider these arguments. 14 Instead, the Court considered Defendants’ arguments when they were 15 originally offered and declined to order a broad extension of the 16 fact discovery deadline at that time. 17 Defendants have not demonstrated that they acted diligently 18 to comply with this Court’s scheduling order. 19 are correct that some delay occurred while the magistrate judge 20 considered Plaintiff’s opposition to their third-party subpoenas 21 for documents, Defendants have not proffered any explanation for 22 their initial delay in serving these subpoenas. 23 While Defendants Defendants also have not demonstrated that the denial of the 24 ability to take depositions of Plaintiff’s employees and agents 25 would prejudice them. 26 that the depositions are necessary to their preparation of their 27 defense and counter-claim; however, in their administrative 28 motions and supporting affidavits, they made clear that they In the instant motion, Defendants state 3 believe that the depositions are relevant to the preparation of 2 their first sale defense. 3 ‘owner of a particular copy’ of a copyrighted work to sell or 4 dispose of his copy without the copyright owner's authorization.” 5 Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) 6 (citing 17 U.S.C. § 109(a)). 7 possesses a copy of the copyrighted work without owning it, such 8 as a licensee.” 9 Circuit has held that “a software user is a licensee rather than 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 1 an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that 11 the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the 12 user’s ability to transfer the software; 13 use restrictions.” 14 that the additional depositions are relevant to making this 15 determination, which can be done by looking to the contracts 16 themselves. 17 discovery deadline in order to allow Defendants to obtain these 18 documents. 19 20 21 The first sale doctrine “allows the It “does not apply to a person who Id. (citing 17 U.S.C. § 109(d)). Id. at 1111. The Ninth and (3) imposes notable Defendants have not demonstrated This Court’s prior order already extended the fact Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 133). IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 Dated: 12/14/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?