Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems LLC v. Real Action Paintball Inc et al

Filing 436

OPINION AND ORDER granting 428 Motion for Release of Bond Obligation; granting in part and denying in part 430 Motion for Reconsideration. The Clerk is ordered to seal docket entry 324 . Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 9/11/15. (mc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ADVANCED TACTICAL ORDNANCE
SYSTEMS, LLC, an Indiana limited liability
company, (d/b/a PepperBall Technologies),

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
REAL ACTION PAINTBALL, INC., and
K.T. TRAN,

Defendants.

1:12-CV-296 JVB

OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Real Action Paintball Inc. (“RAP4”) moves for reconsideration of this Court’s
ruling that denied its motion to transfer $10,000 bond to the Northern District of California and
its motion to seal a portion of Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Second Amended Motion
for a Preliminary injunction.
Although motions for reconsideration are not specifically authorized by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the Seventh Circuit and this district apply Rule 59(e) standards to these
motions. Wagner v. Nutrasweet Co., 873 F. Supp. 87, 101–02 (N.D. Ill. 1994). The Seventh
Circuit has discussed the role of the motion to reconsider:
A motion for reconsideration performs a valuable function where the Court has
patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial
issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning
but of apprehension. A further basis for a motion to reconsider would be a
controlling or significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the
issue to the Court.
Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)
(citations omitted).

1

However useful motions for reconsideration may be, the problems that justify such
motions “rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare.” Id. Motions for
reconsideration “are not at the disposal of parties who want to ‘rehash’ old arguments . . . and
such motions are not appropriate vehicles for introducing evidence that could have been
produced prior to the entry of judgment or for tendering new legal theories for the first time.”
Wagner, 873 F. Supp. at 101–02 (citations omitted).
In his motion to reconsider, RAP4 argues that the Court wrongly denied its motion to
transfer the $10,000 to the Northern District of California because it incorrectly believed that the
California court rejected RAP4’s motion to accept the bond. According to RAP4, the district
court in California intended to do just the opposite. Whatever the case, with its response to the
motion, Plaintiff submitted a copy of California court’s order denying RAP4’s motion to accept
the bond from this Court. (See DE 435-1.) Accordingly, the Court denies RAP4’s motion to
reconsider on this issue.
In turn, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to release the bond in this case. While the
Court erred in accepting personal jurisdiction over Defendants, the Court is not convinced that
they sustained any damages as a result of the injunction against them. In fact, a similar injunction
has subsequently been issued against Defendants in the Northern District of California. As any
further proceedings in this case would be futile, the bond money may be returned to Plaintiff.
While denying RAP4’s request regarding the bond, the Court will reconsider its request
to seal Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Preliminary Injunction, but only to
avoid undermining the California Court’s order finding that the same information should be
sealed.

2

In summary, the Court grants in part and denies in part RAP4’s motion to reconsider (DE
430). The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to release bond (DE 428). The Clerk is ordered to seal
docket entry 324.
SO ORDERED on September 11, 2015.
/s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3