GIVAUDAN FRAGRANCES CORPORATION v. KRIVDA

Filing 259

MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 253 KRIVDA'S Motion for Reconsideration; denying MANE'S 254 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert on 3/5/2013. (eaj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

GIVAUDAN FRAGRANCES
CORPORATION,

:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
JAMES KRIVDA, and MANE USA, INC.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_________________________________________ :

Civil Action No. 08-4409 (PGS)

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on two Motions for Reconsideration of the Court’s
February 15, 2013 Discovery Order (“the Order”) [dkt. no. 246]. The first Motion was filed by
Defendant James Krivda (“Krivda”) [dkt. no. 253], and the second Motion was filed by Mane
USA, Inc. (“Mane”) [dkt. no. 254]. Plaintiff Givaudan Fragrances Corporation (“Plaintiff” or
“Givaudan”) responded to the Motions by letter [dkt. no. 256]. The Court has carefully
considered the parties’ submissions pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 78 and, for the reasons set forth
below, both Motions are DENIED.
I.
This is an action for misappropriation of trade secrets. The facts of this case are wellknown to the Parties, and have been addressed in detail by this Court. Thus, the Court will
address only the factual allegations and background information relevant to the instant Motions.
This case is now more than four years old. Discovery is ongoing, and has been
contentious from the outset. Most recently, Givaudan agreed to forego its application for a
preliminary injunction in favor of an expedited schedule for completion of discovery and, if
appropriate, a plenary trial on the merits. See A. Marchetta Letter, dkt. no. 231. Accordingly, the

Court conducted a live status conference on February 7, 2013 to address all outstanding
discovery issues. During that conference, a schedule for completion of discovery was
established. In addition, certain unresolved discovery issues were brought to the Court’s
attention. The Order addressed those outstanding issues.
Krivda and Mane now take issue with the Order. Mane seeks an order limiting the scope
of discovery in this case to the formulas actually identified as misappropriated (i.e., the alleged
“matches”). Krivda seeks an order (a) directing Plaintiff to produce copies of any formula
information it intends to use at trial; and (b) precluding Plaintiff from using any formula
information at trial for which Plaintiff does not produce copies.
II.
Local Civil Rule 7.1(g) governs motions for reconsideration. It requires the moving party
to “set forth concisely the matters or controlling decision which counsel believes [the Court]
overlooked.” L. Civ. R. 7.1(g). A motion under Rule 7.1(g) may be granted if: (1) “an
intervening change in the controlling law has occurred; (2) evidence not previously available has
become available; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice.” Carmichael v. Everson, 2004 WL 1587894, at *1 (D.N.J. May 21, 2004). “Because
reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy, requests pursuant to
these rules are to be granted ‘sparingly.’” NL Indus., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F.
Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996) (citation omitted).
III.
In this case, Mane has not satisfied the high standard required to succeed on a motion for
reconsideration. Mane claims the Court overlooked controlling precedent that requires a plaintiff
in a trade secret case to disclose with specificity the trade secrets it claims were misappropriated.

2

Specifically, Mane contends it was never put on notice of the 616 formulas that were allegedly
stolen by Krivda. Givaudan maintains these formulas were made available for inspection at its
attorneys’ office.
“An argument is not deemed overlooked because it is not specifically addressed in a
court's opinion.” Byrne v. Calastro, 2006 WL 2506722, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2006) (citation
omitted). Mane raised this very argument in its opposition to Givaudan’s Motion to Compel and
in supplemental briefing to the Court. The Court considered the argument and determined that it
was a legal issue rather than a discovery issue. Recognizing the broad discretion it has to manage
discovery issues, e.g., In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817-18 (3d Cir. 1982), the
Court then made a series of further judgments. First, the Court determined the information
sought was relevant. Second, the Court took notice of the contentious and protracted nature of
discovery to date, and entered an Order designed to get the case trial-ready in the fastest and
most efficient manner. Third, and perhaps most pertinent to the issue at hand, the Court also took
notice of Mane’s failure (or refusal) to inspect the documents as invited by Givaudan.1
Krivda’s Motion is also DENIED for the reasons discussed above. However, Krivda has
raised some concerns about the Order’s intended meaning. Thus, for the sake of clarification
only, and not intending to alter the meaning or effect of the Order, the following wording shall
be substituted for and supersede Part I, paragraph 1:
1.

Krivda’s request for documents concerning the Givaudan formulas that were

allegedly copied is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as follows:

1

This is not to say the Court condones the conditions imposed by Givaudan. However, Mane
cannot complain of unfair conditions when it unilaterally declined to work within them. Mane’s
argument would have been stronger had it at least attempted to work within Givaudan’s
conditions and then alerted the Court to the problems they presented.
3

a.

Krivda’s Request is DENIED to the extent Givaudan has made the non-

matching formulas available for inspection.
b.

Krivda’s Request is DENIED to the extent Givaudan has represented that

it has produced detailed formula information regarding the alleged matches.
c.

The request is otherwise GRANTED. If Givaudan believes that it has

produced everything in its possession, it must so certify.
Once again, the Court notes that the preceding interpretation is intended for clarification
purposes only.
Finally, the Court makes no determination as to Givaudan’s ability to use certain
information at trial other than to note that Givaudan must satisfy itself that it has properly
complied with its discovery obligations. If it has not done so, an in limine motion is the most
appropriate manor to address this issue.
IV.
The Court, having considered the papers submitted pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 78, and for
the reasons set forth above;
IT IS this 5th day of March, 2013,
ORDERED that Mane’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Krivda’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the preceding wording of Part I, paragraph 1 shall be substituted for and
supersede the wording in Part I, paragraph 1 of the Order; and it is further

4

ORDERED that the parties’ must otherwise comply with the terms and conditions of the
Order, including the deadline for production of the documents compelled by the Order.
s/ Douglas E. Arpert
DOUGLAS E. ARPERT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5