Nanometrics, Incorporated v. Optical Solutions, Inc.

Filing 192

ORDER DENYING 190 NANOMETRICS, INC.'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/31/2023. (mdllc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2023)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

OPTICAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a New
Hampshire corporation,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
NANOMETRICS, INCORPORATED, a
Delaware corporation,

16
17
18
19
20

Re: ECF No. 190

NANOMETRICS, INCORPORATED, et
al.,

14
15

ORDER DENYING NANOMETRICS,
INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR PARTIAL
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Defendant.

12
13

Case No. 18-cv-00417-BLF (consolidated)

Plaintiffs,
v.
OPTICAL SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Presently before the Court is Defendant Nanometrics, Inc.’s (“Nanometrics”) Motion for
Leave to File Motion for Partial Reconsideration (the “Motion”) of the Court’s Order Denying
Nanometrics’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the “MSJ Order”). See Mot., ECF No. 190.

21
Nanometrics seeks leave to move for reconsideration on two grounds, arguing that (1) with respect
22
23
24
25
26

to Plaintiff Optical Solutions, Inc.’s (“Optical”) claim for breach of contract, the MSJ Order
improperly found a dispute of fact based on Optical’s “new and unpled argument of excuse,” and
(2) with respect to Optical’s promissory estoppel claim, the MSJ Order should have considered
whether Optical’s “new argument that there were no ‘fixed and final’ specifications” was contrary
to the Court’s prior orders regarding the conditional promise at issue and precluded a conclusion

27
that there was a clear and unambiguous promise. See id. at 1, 8. Prior to filing the Motion,
28

1

Nanometrics raised the former issue at the Final Pretrial Conference held on October 20, 2023,

2

and, pursuant to the Court’s request, submitted citations to the record pertaining to its assertion

3

that the Court’s prior orders in this action conflicted with the theory of excuse purportedly raised

4

by Optical. See ECF No. 189.

5

I.

A motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may be filed prior to the entry of a

6
7

final judgment in the case. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). “The moving party must specifically show

8

reasonable diligence in bringing the motion” and one of the following circumstances:

9

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in
fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before
entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought.
The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence
the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law
at the time of the interlocutory order; or

10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

LEGAL STANDARD

12

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring
after the time of such order; or

13
14

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or
dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before
such interlocutory order.

15
16

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Whether to grant leave to file under Rule 7-9 is committed to the Court's sound

17

discretion. See United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000). Nanometrics brings

18

the Motion under Local Rule 7-9(b)(3). See Mot. 1–2.

19

II.

20

DISCUSSION
The Court has carefully reviewed Nanometrics’s Motion, the helpfully provided record

21

citations, and the parties’ briefings on Nanometrics’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the “MSJ”).

22

Broadly, the Court finds that the arguments raised by Nanometrics go to factual disputes to be

23

decided by a jury.

24

With respect to Nanometrics’s argument that the Court found a dispute of fact based on a

25

new argument of excuse put forth by Optical, the Court advises that it did not and does not read

26

Optical’s brief in opposition to the MSJ to assert a new theory of excuse from performance. See

27

MSJ Opp’n, ECF No. 141. Accordingly, the Court’s MSJ Order does not adopt any such theory.

28

Rather, the portions of the MSJ Order challenged by Nanometrics hold that there exist genuine
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

issues of fact regarding Optical’s performance because there are issues of fact on what full

2

performance entailed, not that there exist disputes of fact as to whether Optical’s performance was

3

excused.1 See Mot. 6–8; MSJ Order 7 (Parts III(A)(2)(b)–(c)). The Court additionally notes that

4

its discussion of Nanometrics’s purported failure to provide commercial specifications to Optical,

5

see id. (Part III(A)(2)(c)), does not concern excuse, but instead picks up on a theme raised by

6

Nanometrics in its moving papers: that “the parties never reached agreement on commercial terms

7

. . . for the 25 micron production lenses, or any other lens.” See Mot. Summ. J. 20, ECF No. 139;

8

MSJ Order 7 (citing Mot. Summ. J. 20); see also Unruh v. Smith, 123 Cal. App. 2d 431, 437

9

(1954) (describing promisee’s prevention of performance not as excuse for nonperformance, but

10

as “equivalent to performance by the promisor”). The Court will therefore deny the Motion with

11

respect to the excuse issue of the breach of contract claim.
With respect to Optical’s promissory estoppel claim, Nanometrics argues that the MSJ

12
13

Order should have found that Optical’s assertion in its opposition to the MSJ that “there was never

14

a fixed and final design specification for the 25 micron lens project” precluded a conclusion that

15

the promise at issue was clear and unambiguous. See Mot. 8 (citing MSJ Opp’n 17). Optical

16

made this statement in connection with its arguments opposing Nanometrics’s motion for

17

summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. See MSJ Opp’n 17. Nanometrics then filed a

18

reply in support of its summary judgment motion in which the Court can find no mention of its

19

present promissory estoppel argument based on Optical’s statements in the opposition brief. See

20

MSJ Reply 12–14, ECF No. 143. Accordingly, Nanometrics has not provided a proper basis for a

21

motion for reconsideration on this ground, i.e., a material difference in fact or law, the emergence

22

of material facts or a change of law, or a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or

23

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court prior to the issuance of the MSJ

24

Order. See Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Further, to the extent this argument is in any way based on the same

25

issue of excuse discussed above, given the reference in the MSJ Order’s discussion of promissory

26
27
28

To the extent the section heading of “Performance or Excuse for Nonperformance” caused
confusion, the Court clarifies that the heading refers to the general statement of the element of a
breach of contract claim as it was previously described in the MSJ Order. See MSJ Order 5, 6.
3
1

1

estoppel to the Court’s reasoning on performance, see MSJ Order 9 (“However, for the reasons

2

described above, [Optical] has provided sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of fact as

3

to whether it in fact met the condition for the promise . . . .”), the Court will deny the Motion for

4

the same reasons.

5

III.

6

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Nanometrics’s Motion for Leave to

7

File a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Denying Summary Judgment. The

8

action will go forward according to the current trial schedule.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 31, 2023

12
13
Beth Labson Freeman
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4