Wiremold Co v. Thomas & Betts Corp

Filing 114

ORDER denying 109 Motion for Reconsideration for the reasons set forth in the attached decision. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 7/12/2019. (Nault, James)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

WIREMOLD CO.,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS & BETTS CORP.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 3:16-CV-2133 (VLB)

July 12, 2019

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [DKT. 109]
Before the Court is Plaintiff Wiremold’s July 8, 2019 Motion for
Reconsideration, [Dkt. 109], of the Court’s denial of Wiremold’s Motion to Amend
filed June 28, 2019. [Dkt. 108]. For the reasons that follow, Wiremold’s Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED.
A motion for reconsideration must be filed within 7 days of the ruling sought
to be reconsidered. D. Conn. L. Civil R. 7(c)(1). A motion for reconsideration must
“be accompanied by a memorandum setting forth concisely the controlling
decisions or data the movant believes the Court overlooked.” Id. “Such motions
will generally be denied unless the movant can point to controlling decisions or
data that the court overlooked in the initial decision or order.” Id.
The standard for a motion for reconsideration “is strict, and reconsideration
will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions
or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably
be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp.,
Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).

A motion for reconsideration will only be granted on one of the following
three grounds: (1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the availability of new
evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir.
1992). Moreover, “a motion to reconsider should not be granted where the moving
party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided.” Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257.
The Court’s expressed reason for denying Wiremold’s Motion to Amend was
the possibility that granting that motion to assert an indirect infringement claim
could require the joinder of new parties and open a discovery pandora’s box
leading to an excessive number of new depositions, numerous motions for
extension of time to complete discovery, and ultimately delay in trying this case.
Wiremold’s conclusory assurance that grant of its motion would not cause
“significant” delay acknowledged that additional discovery would be required,
while providing the court with no basis to discern how much.
In its Motion for Reconsideration, Wiremold claims the court improvidently
denied its Motion to Amend because it failed to consider its unsupported and
conclusory assertion that amendment would not “significantly” delay the progress
of the case. In its Motion for Reconsideration Plaintiffs makes a very different
statement. There it states, “the proposed amended complaint will not in any way
impact the discovery cut-off date or delay trial.” [Dkt. 109 at 4] (emphasis added).
Wiremold does not assert it later discovered facts which enabled it to make the
later affirmative statement. Its later affirmative statement undermines its original

2

admission that some unspecified and unquantified additional discovery would be
required.
On July 10, 2019 the Court conducted a previously scheduled discovery
status conference with the parties, and during that conference Wiremold’s counsel
confirmed that the proposed amendment would not result in Wiremold seeking to
expand discovery. It specifically represented that amendment would likely expand
slightly the scope of deposition topics but would not require any additional
depositions or require joinder of any additional parties; and that because its expert
opinion addressed the claim(s) sought to be added, T&B and its expert had ample
notice and opportunity to respond. T&B countered that granting the proposed
amendment would certainly make significant additional discovery necessary and
would result in delay and undue prejudice to T&B.
T&B opposed leave to amend arguing Wiremold failed to diligently pursue
the claim. [Dkt. 94]. It claims that Wiremold knew T&B’s invention was sold without
receptacles and therefore it had reason to know it could have asserted an indirect
infringement claim. Wiremold responds that it learned from discovery facts which
led it to understand it had an indirect infringement claim and timely moved to
amend its complaint.
The Court finds the motion for reconsideration was filed timely. It further
finds there is no asserted intervening change in the law or newly available facts
warranting reconsideration of its denial of leave to amend. The court did not err
and instead made a decision reasonably drawn from the facts presented by
Wiremold. Given that Wiremold had a fair opportunity to present its request for

3

leave and failed to meet its burden of persuasion, it would be manifestly unjust to
T&B to allow it to relitigate the matter with the benefit of the court’s reasoning. In
addition, it would undermine the principles of finality and judicial efficiency to
permit parties to litigate an issue repeatedly, especially where, as occurred here,
the party can change their argument to eliminate the reasoning for the original
decision.
The court expressly reaches no conclusion as to whether Wiremold had
sufficient knowledge of facts to form the reasonable basis to believe it had a claim
for indirect infringement prior to receiving discovery from T&B. Accordingly, it
expresses no conclusion that the doctrine of claim preclusion or res judicata would
preclude Wiremold from commencing a separate action asserting indirect
infringement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
________/s/_____________
Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge

Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: July 12, 2019.

4