Cave Consulting Group, LLC v. Ingenix, Inc.

Filing 478

ORDER DENYING 475 PLAINTIFF'S SECOND ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD; DENYING 474 , 476 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/13/2017. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

CAVE CONSULTING GROUP, LLC,

Case No. 5:11-cv-00469-EJD

Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
11

OPTUMINSIGHT, INC.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD;
DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 474, 475, 476

13
14

Plaintiff Cave Consulting Group, Inc. (“CCGroup”) has filed a motion to supplement the

15

record regarding its Motion for Permanent Injunction and to Set Ongoing Royalty Rate (Dkt. No.

16

385-6), as well as a motion to file under seal certain materials submitted therewith. Dkt. Nos. 474,

17

475. Defendant OptumInsight, Inc. (“OptumInsight,”) has filed a response, also accompanied by a

18

motion to file under seal certain portions of its submission. Dkt. No. 476.

19

On September 7, 2016, the Court denied CCGroup’s Motion for Permanent Injunction and

20

to Set Ongoing Royalty Rate, determining that “it would be appropriate to delay the consideration

21

of evidence and calculating the ongoing royalty rate until after the completion of the appeals in

22

this case.” Dkt. No. 456 at 45. CCGroup filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court’s

23

decision to delay its determination of an ongoing royalty rate, Dkt. No. 457, and with the Court’s

24

leave, OptumInsight filed a response, Dkt. No. 473. In its response, OptumInsight argued that the

25

same jurisdictional issues raised in CCGroup’s motion for reconsideration are currently being

26

considered by the Federal Circuit, as OptumInsight has appealed the Court’s decision to the

27

1
Case No.: 5:11-cv-00469-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER
SEAL

28

1

Federal Circuit and the parties have now fully briefed a motion to dismiss at the Federal Circuit on

2

the same grounds. Dkt. 473 (citing Cave Consulting Group, Inc. v. OptumInsight, Inc., No. 17-

3

1060 (Fed. Cir.), Dkt. Nos. 26, 27, 28). This point is persuasive to the Court, as the Federal

4

Circuit is the more appropriate judge of its own jurisdiction. Further, the Court does not want to

5

take any action that may alter or disrupt the Federal Circuit’s current consideration of CCGroup’s

6

motion to dismiss. As such, the Court will delay consideration of CCGroup’s motion for

7

reconsideration until the Federal Circuit has decided CCGroup’s motion to dismiss or until

8

otherwise necessary or appropriate.
Because the Court is, at present, delaying its decision on CCGroup’s motion for

10

reconsideration, there is no current need to supplement the record. As such, the Court DENIES

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

WITHOUT PREJUDICE CCGroup’s motion to supplement the record. Further, because the

12

Court is not presently accepting CCGroup’s supplemental material, its motion to seal is DENIED

13

as moot. OptumInsight’s motion to seal is also DENIED as moot.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated: February 13, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 5:11-cv-00469-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER
SEAL