NetFuel, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:18-cv-02352
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In NetFuel v. Cisco, Judge Davila denied NetFuel’s motion for leave to seek reconsideration of an order striking expert-report portions and denying supplemental reports.
NetFuel, Inc.’s request for permission to seek reconsideration was denied, leaving the earlier rulings affecting its expert reports and supplemental reports in place.
What happened
NetFuel, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc. involved NetFuel’s request to seek reconsideration of an earlier order. That order granted Cisco’s motion to strike portions of expert reports and denied NetFuel permission to file supplemental expert reports. NetFuel argued that the court had made an error.
The court rejected NetFuel’s arguments. It said the earlier order did not state that the reports were struck “with prejudice,” Cisco’s reply addressed an issue NetFuel had raised, and the cited legal authorities did not show a clear error or change in law or fact. The court also continued to find concerns about burdening Cisco and giving NetFuel another opportunity to correct deficiencies in its reports.
Judge Davila denied NetFuel’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration because NetFuel had not provided adequate grounds for reconsideration.
The detailed version
- NetFuel, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc. · No. 5:18-cv-02352
- Edward Davila
- Mar. 25, 2020
Background
On March 10, 2020, the court granted Cisco’s motion to strike portions of NetFuel’s expert reports. The court also declined to allow NetFuel to file supplemental expert reports. NetFuel then filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the earlier ruling was erroneous.
Reconsideration standard
The court applied Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-9(b). Under that rule, reconsideration may be appropriate if there is a material difference in fact or law, clear error or manifest injustice, or newly emerged material facts or a material change in law. The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.
NetFuel’s arguments
NetFuel argued first that the court had improperly struck its expert reports “with prejudice,” even though Cisco had not requested that result. The court responded that its earlier order never used the phrase “with prejudice” and that NetFuel had not identified the alleged error or explained what injustice resulted.
NetFuel next argued that the court had improperly considered an argument first raised in Cisco’s reply brief. The court found that NetFuel had itself raised the issue of supplemental expert reports in its opposition, and that Cisco’s reply properly responded to that issue.
NetFuel also argued that the authorities relied on by the court were not applicable. The court said those authorities were not new, did not show a material change in law or fact, and did not establish clear error. Finally, NetFuel argued that supplemental reports would not disrupt the trial schedule. The court rejected that argument because it did not identify clear error, failed to address the burden on Cisco, and did not address the court’s concern that supplemental reports would give NetFuel a “second bite at the apple” after deficiencies in its reports had been identified.
Ruling
The court held that NetFuel had not provided grounds for reconsideration. Judge Edward J. Davila therefore denied NetFuel’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The order addressed only the request for reconsideration; it did not alter the earlier rulings striking portions of the expert reports and denying supplemental reports.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.