Bartech Systems International, Inc. v. Mobile Simple Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 468

ORDER that Plaintiff's motion to reconsider ECF No. 455 and Snell's request for attorneys' fees ECF No. 460 are DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/13/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
12
13
14
15

BARTECH SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
MOBILE SIMPLE SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:15-cv-02422-MMD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 455)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s

17

motion to compel. Docket No. 455. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion, non-party Snell &

18

Wilmer LLP’s (“Snell”) response, and Plaintiff’s reply. Docket Nos. 455, 460, 462. The Court finds the

19

motion properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the

20

motion to reconsider is DENIED. Docket No. 455.

21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

On January 31, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel Snell’s response to Plaintiff’s

23

subpoena. Docket No. 447. The Court found that Plaintiff’s motion to compel was untimely under the

24

factors established in Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. Docket No. 447 at 3-4; see also 237 F.R.D. 395, 397 (N.D.

25

Tex. 2006). In the instant motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its order denying the motion to

26

compel because “unusual circumstances” excuse the delay in filing. Docket No. 455 at 3, 9. Plaintiff

27

further submits that the factors established in Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. weigh in its favor. Id. at 9-14;

28

Docket No. 462 at 4-5.

1

II.

STANDARDS

2

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. Local Rule 59-1(b); see also Koninklijke Philips Elecs.

3

N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 245 F.R.D. 470, 472 (D. Nev. 2007) (“Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy,

4

to be used sparingly” (citation and internal quotations omitted)). The Local Rules provide the applicable

5

standards in addressing whether the Court should reconsider an interlocutory order, indicating that

6

reconsideration may be appropriate if (1) there is newly discovered evidence that was not available when

7

the original motion or response was filed, (2) the Court committed clear error or the initial decision was

8

manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. Local Rule 59-1(a). The party

9

seeking reconsideration bears the burden of establishing appropriate grounds for that relief. See ESCO

10

Corp. v. Cashman Equip. Co., 158 F. Supp. 3d 1051, 1076 (D. Nev. 2016) (the motion must set forth both

11

(1) a “valid reason” for reconsideration and (2) facts or law of a “strongly convincing nature to persuade

12

the court to reverse its prior decision” (quoting Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1183 (D.

13

Nev. 2003)); see also 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (the movant

14

bears the burden of establishing grounds for reconsideration).

15

III.

ANALYSIS

16

Plaintiff has not shown that reconsideration is appropriate. The gist of Plaintiff’s position is that

17

its motion to compel was untimely filed because of various delays in responses to its discovery requests and

18

violations of the Court’s orders, which Plaintiff attributes to Defendants. Docket No. 455 at 10, 12-13.

19

Plaintiff further submits that it can obtain the requested discovery only from Snell because Defendant GEM,

20

as well as Defendants Christelle Pigeat and Vincent Tessier, have proved to be incredible sources. Id. at

21

11, 13-14.

22

In response, Snell submits that Plaintiff fails to discuss each factor established in Days Inn

23

Worldwide, Inc. and, therefore, cannot show that “unusual circumstances” exist to reverse the Court’s

24

decision. Docket No. 460 at 4. Snell further submits that Plaintiff fails to provide “‘[c]hanges in ... factual

25

circumstances ... or ‘newly discovered evidence that was not available when the original motion or response

26

was filed.’” Id. at 5 (internal citations omitted). Additionally, Snell requests attorneys’ fees incurred in

27

responding to the instant motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(1). Id. at 6-7.

28
2

1

In reply, Plaintiff discusses all seven of the Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. factors and submits that they

2

lean in its favor, although it submits that a “formulaic recitation” of each is not required in asking the Court

3

to reconsider its order. Docket No. 462 at 3. Plaintiff further submits that attorneys’ fees should not be

4

awarded because it sought the discovery from Snell in good faith, has “substantial justification and need

5

for the documents requested in the Subpoena and Notice,” and because Snell should have provided the

6

documents when Plaintiff first requested them from the original Defendants. Id. at 7-9.

7

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of establishing that appropriate grounds

8

for reconsideration of the Court’s prior order exist. Plaintiff has failed to establish that newly discovered

9

evidence exists that was not available when it filed its motion to compel, that the Court committed clear

10

error or its decision was manifestly unjust, or that an intervening change in controlling law has occurred.

11

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel

12

is DENIED. Docket No. 455. Further, Snell’s request for attorneys’ fees is DENIED. Docket No. 460.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: April 13, 2018

15
16

________________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3