Norgren Automation Solutions, LLC v. PHD, Inc.

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS SECOND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS [#29] AND CANCELLING HEARING. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (Bankston, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NORGREN AUTOMATION
SOLUTION, LLC,
Civil Action No.14-cv-13400
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

Plaintiff,
v.
PHD, INC.,
Defendant.
_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS [#29] AND CANCELLING HEARING
On April 14, 2015, Defendant filed its Second Motion to Stay Proceedings. See
Dkt. No. 29. On March 18, 2015, this Court denied Defendant’s original Motion for
a Stay for several reasons, including the unfair prejudice to Plaintiff if a stay were
entered in these proceedings. See Dkt. No. 26 at 3-5. The Court also found that a stay
would not simplify all of the issues being litigated in this case, that discovery had
already begun and a trial had been set for the liability phase of these proceedings. Id.
at 5.
Defendant again moves for a stay of these proceedings because the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) granted reexamination proceedings
related to the claims in the patents-in-suit on March 23, 2015. As such, Defendant
-1-

maintains that its request for a stay is no longer premature. However, the Court did
not resolve Defendant’s original Motion for Stay solely on the basis that the motion
was premature. See Dkt. No. 26 (“In any event, even if reexamination had been
granted when the instant motion was filed, the Court would nonetheless deny
Defendant’s request for a stay.”)
The remainder of Defendant’s reasons for seeking a stay of the instant
proceedings are arguments that have already been considered and rejected by the
Court in its original decision. As such, Defendant’s Motion appears to be an untimely
Motion for Reconsideration, which would have been due no later than April 6, 2015.
Moreover, “a motion for reconsideration is not properly used as a vehicle to re-hash
old arguments . . . .” Smith ex rel. Smith v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Sch., 298 F. Supp.
2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (citing Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v.
Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.1998)). Defendant’s present motion simply does
not remedy the defects in its original filing. Defendant has failed in its burden
showing circumstances justify an exercise of this Court’s discretion to grant a stay.
Additionally, and inexcusably, Defendant fails to indicate in its present motion
whether it sought concurrence from Plaintiff for the relief sought in its present motion.
This is contrary to the local rules of this Court.
LR 7.1: Motion Practice

-2-

(a)

Seeking Concurrence in Motions and Requests.
(1)

The movant must ascertain whether the contemplated
motion . . . will be opposed. If the movant obtains
concurrence, the parties or other persons involved may
make the subject matter of the contemplated motion or
request a matter of record by stipulated order.

(2)

If concurrence is not obtained, the motion or request must
state:
(A) there was a conference between attorneys or
unrepresented parties and other persons entitled to be
heard on the motion in which the movant explained
the nature of the motion or request and its legal basis
and requested but did not obtain concurrence in the
relief sought; or
(B) despite reasonable efforts specified in the motion or
request, the movant is unable to conduct a
conference.

E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(a).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Second Motion to Stay
Proceedings [#29] is DENIED.
Dated: April 15, 2015

/s/Gershwin A Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-