Skanska USA Building Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Background

Skanska USA Building Inc. sued Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for breach of contract and other claims. Skanska later amended its complaint to add Shawn’s Lawns Inc. as a defendant and asserted additional claims. Regeneron and Shawn’s Lawns answered and asserted counterclaims and, in Shawn’s Lawns’ case, cross-claims.

Regeneron sought to strike paragraphs 195–211 and 304–305 of Skanska’s First Amended Complaint. The court treated the parties’ pre-motion letters as the motion and opposition, then granted Regeneron’s motion to strike those allegations. Skanska filed a Second Amended Complaint that removed them.

Motion for reconsideration

Skanska moved for reconsideration of the order striking the allegations. Reconsideration is an exceptional remedy generally available when the court overlooked controlling law or important information, when controlling law has changed, when new evidence is available, or when correction is needed to prevent a clear error or serious unfairness. It may not be used simply to repeat arguments already presented.

Skanska argued that the allegations were relevant to several matters beyond its tortious-interference claim, including Regeneron’s counterclaims and Skanska’s defenses. Skanska also argued that Regeneron had not provided evidence of prejudice and that the court should not have decided relevance and admissibility without a fuller factual record and hearing.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected the motion. It explained that the Settlement Negotiation Agreement states that discussions, negotiations, and related communications between the parties or their representatives may not be discovered, admitted as evidence, or otherwise used in existing or later litigation, arbitration, or other dispute resolution proceedings.

The court had previously found that the challenged allegations were covered by that agreement, were not discoverable, admissible, or usable, and caused slight prejudice to Regeneron. On reconsideration, the court stated that even assuming the allegations were relevant to other claims or defenses and that Regeneron had not shown prejudice, the agreement independently prohibited their use. Skanska did not identify overlooked controlling decisions or information that would alter that conclusion. Instead, it repeated arguments about the agreement’s enforceability and scope that the court had already considered.

The court also concluded that it had properly exercised its discretion to decide the motion based on the parties’ pre-motion letters and conference arguments. Skanska did not identify information that a fuller factual record would have supplied that could change the admissibility ruling. The court further found that the materials Skanska said it would have submitted would not provide materially new information. Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, the court also struck and disregarded the declaration and exhibits Skanska submitted without seeking permission, as well as an exhibit attached to its reply.

Ruling

Judge Philip M. Halpern denied Skanska’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion sequence. The earlier order striking the specified allegations therefore remained in place.