Enterprises International, Inc. et al v. International Knife & Saw, Inc.

Filing 192

ORDER denying 176 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(TG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 8 ENTERPRISES INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., 9 Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 INTERNATIONAL KNIFE & SAW, 12 INC., et al., 13 CASE NO. C12-5638 BHS ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendants. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Enterprises International, Inc., 16 and Legacy Automation, Inc.’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 176). 17 On July 24, 2014, the Court granted in part Defendants International Knife & Saw 18 Inc. (South Carolina), International Knife & Saw, Inc. (Quebec), and International Knife 19 and Saw de Mexico, S.A. DE C.V.’s (“Defendants”) motion for summary judgment and 20 concluded, in part, that Plaintiffs’ misappropriation of trade secrets claim was barred by 21 the statute of limitations. Dkt. 171 at 13–14. On August 6, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a 22 motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 176. On August 12, 2014, the Court requested a ORDER - 1 1 response. Dkt. 179. On August 25, 2014, Defendants responded. Dkt. 186. On August 2 29, 2014, Plaintiffs replied. Dkt. 190. 3 Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h), which provides 4 as follows: 5 6 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. 7 Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). 8 In this case, Plaintiffs argue that the Court committed manifest error by 9 misconstruing the evidence and relying on the wrong case law. Dkt. 176. With regard to 10 the latter, Plaintiffs contend that the Court improperly relied on Roley v. New World 11 Pictures, 19 F.3d 479 (9th Cir. 1994), which involves copyright issues. Dkt. 176 at 10– 12 11. The order, however, clearly shows that the Court relied on the appropriate 13 Washington statute and Ashton-Tate Corp. v. Ross, 916 F.2d 516, 523-24 (9th Cir. 1990), 14 which applied a similar state statute. Dkt. 171 at 13–14. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ argument 15 is without merit. 16 With regard to the evidence, the Court concluded that the evidence showed that 17 Plaintiffs could have discovered the misappropriation through a reasonable and rather 18 minimal investigation. Dkt. 171 at 14. Nothing in Plaintiffs’ motion alters that 19 conclusion, and Plaintiffs simply disagree with the Court’s conclusion. Disagreement is 20 not a sufficient basis to grant reconsideration. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ 21 motion as to any manifest error of law. 22 ORDER - 2 1 Plaintiffs also argue that newly discovered evidence “highlights the Court’s 2 misapprehension” of the John White email. Dkt. 176 at 12. The anonymously delivered 3 documents do not alter the content of Mr. White’s email. Therefore, the Court DENIES 4 Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. 5 Dated this 4th day of September, 2014. A 6 7 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?