Chen v. BMW of North America, LLC

Background

BMW of North America, LLC moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) for relief from an earlier interlocutory order. The dispute concerned discovery, including the production schedule for FASTA data from the subject vehicle and BMW’s concerns about trade secrets.

Reasons for Denial

The court denied BMW’s motion. First, BMW did not comply with Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), which requires a party seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory order to obtain leave of court before filing the motion. The court also found that BMW’s motion did not address the relevant factors under Local Rule 7-9(b), such as a material difference in fact or law, new material facts or a change in law, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments.

The court further held that BMW had not shown the “extraordinary circumstance” required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The court noted that BMW could have raised its concerns about the production schedule or trade secrets when the parties first presented the dispute months earlier.

Discovery Instructions and Disposition

The court denied BMW’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion. It ordered the parties to meet and confer immediately to reach reasonable solutions for rolling production of the FASTA data and BMW’s trade-secret concerns. The court suggested that relevant information could be produced with redactions of truly unrelated protected information and subject to a protective order.

If disputes remained, the parties were ordered to file a joint discovery letter by February 28, 2022. The court warned that it would sanction any party taking an unreasonable position and might require party representatives to attend a discovery hearing with counsel. The court stated that it would decide whether sanctions were appropriate.