Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corp.

Background

The court considered two requests to reconsider an earlier order: Bytemark’s January 14, 2021 letter and the defendants’ letter. The earlier dispute arose from the parties’ motions to compel document production and the defendants’ motion for a protective order. The parties had served motion papers by email on December 28, 2020 and filed papers on the electronic court system on January 6, 2021, after the motions had been fully briefed.

Both sides said they believed they were following the assigned district judge’s “bundling rule,” which they understood to require filing the motion and reply papers together after briefing was complete. Bytemark said it had misunderstood the court’s December 14, 2020 order and apologized. The defendants likewise said they had misunderstood the appropriate filing method. Each party asked the court to reconsider the earlier order, either through the letter or through a formal motion if the court preferred.

Legal standard

Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, reconsideration of an order deciding a motion may be justified by an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice. A reconsideration request must also comply with the court’s filing requirements.

Court’s analysis

Judge Fox first ruled that the parties’ requests were not properly made as letter motions. The court’s electronic-filing rules did not permit letters requesting relief unless the local rules or those electronic-filing rules allowed that procedure. Because motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Civil Rule 6.3, the court said they could not be made by letter motion under the applicable rules.

Even so, the court considered the parties’ assertions. It found that neither party cited legal authority or identified an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. The parties also did not explain why they believed the assigned district judge’s individual rules applied to motions referred to Judge Fox, or why their December 28 certificates of service were filed before the motions themselves. The court concluded that the parties had chosen to follow their own filing procedures without seeking guidance, despite the December 14 order’s direction that the motions be made by December 28.

Disposition

The court found that Bytemark and the defendants had failed to establish any ground for reconsideration. It therefore denied both requests, Docket Entries 130 and 131. The opinion does not state that either request was denied with or without prejudice.