Patent Technology, LLC v. Lawrence Woodman et al

Filing 93

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 92 Motion for Reconsideration re 86 Order on Motion for Discovery. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PATENT TECHNOLOGY, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-00578-DMR Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 9 10 LAWRENCE WOODMAN, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 92 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 The court has received Plaintiff Patent Technology, LLC’s motion for reconsideration. 13 [Docket No. 92.] In its motion, Plaintiff appears to seek reconsideration of a portion of the court’s 14 March 29, 2016 order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s administrative motion 15 seeking early discovery from third parties. [Docket No. 86.] Specifically, Plaintiff appears to 16 seek reconsideration of the court’s order denying it leave to serve early discovery on third party 17 New Mexico Department of Health. 18 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, a party may seek leave to file a motion for 19 reconsideration of an interlocutory order at any time before judgment. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). A motion 20 for reconsideration may be made on one of three grounds: (1) a material difference in fact or law 21 exists from that which was presented to the court, which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, 22 the party applying for reconsideration did not know at the time of the order for which 23 reconsideration is sought; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a 24 manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments presented 25 before such order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). The moving party may not reargue any written or oral 26 argument previously asserted to the court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). Whether to grant leave to file a 27 motion for reconsideration under Rule 7-9 is committed to the court’s sound discretion. See 28 Montebueno Mktg., Inc. v. Del Monte Corp.—USA, 570 F. App’x 675, 676 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 1 2 Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007)). Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally improper, because it did not request leave to file a 3 motion for reconsideration. Moreover, Plaintiff does not argue that any of the three grounds for 4 reconsideration are present here. Instead, it provides additional information about its unsuccessful 5 attempts to discover identifying information about potential defendant Marry Juliet Smith. To the 6 extent Plaintiff seeks to renew its motion to obtain early discovery from the New Mexico 7 Department of Health, the court notes that this is Plaintiff’s third attempt to do so. See Docket 8 Nos. 20, 79. As with Plaintiff’s earlier motions, Plaintiff cites no legal support or authority for the 9 assertion that it “certainly meets the standard for tangible proof of legal interest to obtain the records of Marry Smith and her immediate family members” from the state of New Mexico. See 11 Mot. for Reconsideration at 5. It again submits no evidence supporting its assertions about 12 Smith’s birthdate, and does not explain how the requested discovery is likely to lead to identifying 13 information about Smith. See Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D. 14 Cal. 1999) (party seeking early discovery must demonstrate, inter alia, a reasonable likelihood that 15 the discovery will lead to identifying information that will permit service of process). 16 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. R NIA ______________________________________ Donna M. Ryu yu M. R United StatesnMagistrate Judge Don a NO RT ER H 22 Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 FO 21 Dated: April 18, 2016 DERED O OR IT IS S LI 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. A 19 UNIT ED 18 S 17 S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O United States District Court Northern District of California 10 N D IS T IC T R OF C

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?