Shah v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al

Filing 168

ORDER Denying 167 Motion to Reconsider 165 . Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 7/24/2020. (mme)

Case 3:17-cv-00121-BEN-MSB Document 168 Filed 07/24/20 PageID.3759 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

IN RE QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
SECURITIES LITIGATION

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00121-BEN-MSB
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RECONSIDER

13
14

[Doc. No. 167]

15
16
17

Before the Court is Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated, Derek A. Aberle, Steven

18

R. Altman, William F. Davidson, Paul E. Jacobs, Steven M. Mollenkopf, and Donald J.

19

Rosenberg’s (collectively “Defendants”) motion to reconsider denial of lead Plaintiffs’

20

motion to seal (Doc. No. 165).

21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders

22

of the district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order

23

or judgment on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3)

24

fraud … of an adverse party, … or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the

25

operation of the judgement.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must

26

be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not more than one year after the

27

judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.

28
1
3:17-cv-00121-BEN-MSB

Case 3:17-cv-00121-BEN-MSB Document 168 Filed 07/24/20 PageID.3760 Page 2 of 3

1

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v.

2

Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth

3

facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior

4

decision. See e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665

5

(E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.

6

1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015, 108 S. Ct. 1752 (1988). The Ninth Circuit has stated

7

that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding

8

clauses.’” Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981); accord LaFarge

9

Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986).

10

Accordingly, “the clause is reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id.

11

In its motion for reconsideration, Defendants summarily repeat arguments made in

12

lead Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. No. 149), then make known its [Qualcomm’s] anxiety that

13

the Court may have inadvertently overlooked M. Brent Byars Declaration (Doc. No.

14

152)1, when it denied Lead Plaintiffs’ application to seal (Doc. No. 152). In support,

15

Defendants’ highlight (in bold font with italics) the following from M. Brent Byars

16

Declaration:
“…the portions of the FTC Complaint in question have already been
sealed in two other federal actions: by the District Court for the Northern
District of California, and by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in
the Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated matters.”

17
18
19
20
21

(Byars Decl. ¶ 10.)

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

“As set forth below, Qualcomm believes the Court may have inadvertently
overlooked the Declaration of M. Brent Byars in support of Lead Plaintiffs’ application,
Dkt. 152, and therefore not fully considered the grounds for maintaining the records in
question under seal.” (Doc. No. 167 at 1.)
1

2
3:17-cv-00121-BEN-MSB

Case 3:17-cv-00121-BEN-MSB Document 168 Filed 07/24/20 PageID.3761 Page 3 of 3

Having considered the Defendants’ motion and attached Declaration, lead

1
2

Plaintiffs’ original motion to seal2, and the Order of denial (Doc. No. 165), the Court

3

does not find extradinary circumstances, new or different facts, and/or circumstances that

4

would justify reconsideration. The Court continues to find the subject documents to be of

5

significance to the public, and neither party has presented a compelling reason that would

6

outweigh the public’s interest. Moreover, it bears noting that just because this or another

7

Court has previously sealed a document does not mean it will seal it again, particularly at

8

trial. Likewise, the fact that both sides agree to seal or that the documents are designated

9

confidential under a protective order is insufficient cause for sealing. Lastly, while this

10

Court found the documents to be of significance to the public, it provided the parties the

11

option of withdrawing the documents, should they choose to do so rather than have them

12

published on the public docket.

13

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

DATED: July 24, 2020

17

_________________________
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Court

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

The Court re-reviewed lead Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 149), M. Brent
Byars Declaration (Doc. No. 152), and the documents sought to be sealed.
2

28

3
3:17-cv-00121-BEN-MSB