Digital Envoy Inc., v. Google Inc.,

Filing 379

ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 370 Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration. (rssec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2005)

Download PDF
Digital Envoy Inc., v. Google Inc., Doc. 379 Case 5:04-cv-01497-RS Document 379 Filed 11/22/2005 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION DIGITAL ENVOY, INC., v. Plaintiff, NO. 5:04-cv-1497 RS ORDER GRANTING GOOGLE'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION *E-FILED 11/22/05* United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GOOGLE, INC., Defendant. / Defendant Google, Inc. ("Google") seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order granting in part and denying in part its motion for partial summary judgment, filed on November 8, 2005. Specifically, Google asks the Court to reconsider its ruling in light of a dispositive legal argument that it contends was previously presented in the motion, namely, whether absent evidence of willful misconduct on the part of Google, plaintiff Digital Envoy, Inc. ("Digital") can recover under any legal theory, including unjust enrichment, on Digital's trade secret claim. In its initial moving papers, Google stated that it sought partial summary judgment that Digital's "damages claims" are barred. See Google's Moving Brief, filed on August 17, 2005, at p. 1. In its current motion, Google states that it "sought summary judgment barring any monetary recovery at all" by Digital. See Google's Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration at p. 1. As a result of this Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:04-cv-01497-RS Document 379 Filed 11/22/2005 Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 discrepancy and to clarify the issues remaining in this action, Google's request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is granted. Google shall file a moving brief addressing its current argument regarding whether the absence of willful misconduct on its part precludes Digital from any recovery in this case, including recovery based on unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty, on November 30, 2005. Digital shall file an opposition brief on or before December 7, 2005. Google may file a reply brief on December 9, 2005. The matter will be deemed submitted on the papers upon the filing of Google's reply brief, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Separately, Google also requests a ruling from the Court concerning its argument that the parties' Agreement contains a limitation of liability clause which prevents Digital from recovering more than $308,600 on its trade secret claim. The parties' briefs shall not address Google's separate request for a further ruling regarding the limitation of liability provision, however, as the Court agrees with Google that the issue has been fully briefed and argued and will, therefore, address that provision if necessary. As a result of this order, the pending motion to compel further discovery, currently scheduled for hearing on December 5, 2005, is continued pending resolution of Google's motion for reconsideration. Once that motion has been resolved, the Court will reschedule the hearing on the motion to compel. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 11/22/05 /s/ Richard Seeborg RICHARD SEEBORG United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER WAS ELECTRONICALLY PROVIDED TO: Brian R. Blackman bblackman@sheppardmullin.com 2 Case 5:04-cv-01497-RS Document 379 Filed 11/22/2005 Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 P. Craig Cardon ccardon@sheppardmullin.com, msariano@sheppardmullin.com tgraves@wsgr.com sholmes@wsgr.com, pmarquez@wsgr.com dkramer@wsgr.com, dgrubbs@wsgr.com mkwun@google.com dlansky@wsgr.com Charles Tait Graves Stephen C. Holmes David H. Kramer Michael S. Kwun David L. Lansky Chan S. Park cpark@wsgr.com Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. Dated: 11/22/05 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg By: /s/ BAK United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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?