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)

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