Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc.
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:17-cv-00589
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Medidata Solutions v. Veeva Systems, Judge Rakoff denied reconsideration of judgment as a matter of law for Veeva.
Medidata Solutions, Inc. and MDSOL Europe Ltd.’s request for reconsideration was denied, leaving Veeva Systems, Inc.’s judgment as a matter of law in place and resulting in final judgment.
What happened
Medidata Solutions, Inc. and MDSOL Europe Ltd. asked the court to reconsider its decision granting Veeva Systems, Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court had granted that motion on July 15, 2022.\n\nThe plaintiffs argued for reconsideration, but the opinion says their motion only raised issues already considered and rejected at trial. The court stated that reconsideration is appropriate only to correct a clear error or address new facts or law that could change the decision.\n\nJudge Jed Rakoff’s court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and entered final judgment. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain the court’s reasoning for granting Veeva’s original motion beyond stating that the plaintiffs’ trial issues had been rejected.
The detailed version
- Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-00589
- Jed Rakoff
- Aug. 18, 2022
Background
The court had granted defendant Veeva Systems, Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on July 15, 2022. Plaintiffs Medidata Solutions, Inc. and MDSOL Europe Ltd. moved for reconsideration on July 29, 2022.
Standard for reconsideration
The court stated that reconsideration should be granted only to correct a clear error or when the moving party presents new facts or law that might cause the court to change its original decision.
Ruling
The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ motion merely raised issues that had already been considered at trial and rejected by the court. It therefore denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The court also entered final judgment. This opinion does not provide the underlying claims or the court’s full reasons for granting Veeva’s original motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.