Quince & Co LLC v. Last Brand, Inc.
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:23-cv-06016
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Quince & Co LLC v. Last Brand, Judge Martinez-Olguin denied Quince & Co LLC’s motion to add late evidence supporting its preliminary-injunction motion.
Quince & Co LLC cannot submit the identified supplemental evidence through this administrative motion; Last Brand, Inc. is the opposing party. The order does not state what effect, if any, the ruling has on the underlying preliminary-injunction motion.
What happened
In Quince & Co LLC v. Last Brand, Inc., Quince & Co LLC asked to submit additional evidence about Last Brand, Inc.’s food and beverage partnerships in support of its request for a preliminary injunction. The company said its counsel discovered the evidence after briefing ended.
The court found that the evidence was publicly available when Quince & Co LLC filed its motion and reply. It therefore ruled that the evidence was late, and also found that Quince & Co LLC had not sufficiently explained why the materials were overlooked or shown good cause for submitting them later.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied Quince & Co LLC’s administrative motion to file the supplemental evidence. This order did not decide the underlying motion for a preliminary injunction.
The detailed version
- Quince & Co LLC v. Last Brand, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-06016
- Martinez-Olguin
- Apr. 2, 2024
Background
Quince & Co LLC moved for permission to file supplemental evidence supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction. The proposed additional evidence concerned Last Brand, Inc.’s food and beverage partnerships. Quince & Co LLC stated that its counsel did not discover the evidence until after briefing on the preliminary-injunction motion had closed.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that evidence is not newly discovered if it could have been found through reasonable diligence. It determined that the evidence Quince & Co LLC identified was publicly available when the company filed its preliminary-injunction motion and its reply. The court therefore found the supplemental evidence untimely. It also concluded that Quince & Co LLC had not provided a sufficient explanation or established good cause for overlooking the materials earlier.
Disposition
The court denied Quince & Co LLC’s administrative motion for leave to file supplemental evidence. The order addressed only the request to add evidence and did not state a ruling on the underlying preliminary-injunction motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.