Fiteq Inc v. Venture Corporation et al

Filing 290

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal denying 272 (psglc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 FITEQ, INC., 12 Plaintiff, v. 13 14 VENTURE CORPORATION, LTD., et al., Defendants. 15 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 5:13-cv-01946-BLF ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Re: Docket No. 239) Defendants Venture Corporation, LTD and Cebelian Holding, Pte, LTD seek 17 reconsideration of this court’s order denying their motion to retroactively seal certain documents. 1 18 The burden to a party seeking reconsideration is high, and as a result courts rarely grant such 19 relief. 2 Venture fails to meet this burden. Venture does not explain how the court can seal 20 information on one part of the public docket, but leave the same information available to the public 21 on other parts of the docket. Plaintiff Fiteq, Inc. has the better of the argument. The motion is 22 DENIED. 23 24 1 25 See Docket No. 264. 2 26 27 28 See Civ. L.R. 7-9; Samet v. Procter & Gamble Co., Case No. 12-cv-01891, 2014 WL 1782821, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2014) (“Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” (quoting Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000))). 1 Case No. 5:13-cv-01946-BLF ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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?