Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01494/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01494-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Hydentra HLP Int. Limited, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Sagan Limited, MXN Limited, Netmedia 

Services Incorporated, and David Koonar,

Defendants.

No. CV-16-01494-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

On February 10, 2020 the Court issued an order denying Defendants’ request for an 

evidentiary hearing. Doc. 71. Defendants, who did not file a reply brief addressing 

Plaintiffs’ response to their request for a hearing, now move for reconsideration and make 

arguments they could have made in reply. Doc. 72. The Court will deny the motion.

I. Governing Standard.

Motions for reconsideration are granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of 

Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Such a motion will be 

denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority 

that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” 

LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see also United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 

780 (9th Cir. 2009). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for 

reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 1776502, at 

*2 (D. Ariz. April 15, 2008). Nor should reconsideration be used to ask the Court to rethink 

Case 2:16-cv-01494-DGC Document 73 Filed 02/26/20 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

its analysis. Id.; see N.W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-

26 (9th Cir. 1988).

II. Discussion.

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have waived the argument that the alleged 

scraping activity in this case is an intentional act. Doc. 72 at 6. The Court does not agree. 

Plaintiffs merely stated that they disagree “that the jurisdictional ‘intentional act’ analysis 

requires review of the allegation of scraping and posting videos.” Doc. 70 at 4 (emphasis 

added). The Court understands this to mean that the Court need not again review its 

decision (and the Ninth Circuit’s agreement) that scraping is a sufficient intentional act. 

See Doc. 62 at 6.

Defendants also argue that an evidentiary hearing would be limited to whether they

could have reasonably foreseen harm within the forum, and that this question is not 

intertwined with the merits. But the foreseeable harm inquiry will address whether 

Defendants committed an intentional act of copyright infringement that caused harm in the 

United States – a question intertwined with the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. When

jurisdictional facts are intertwined with the merits of a case, it is preferable that a 

jurisdictional determination be made at trial “where a plaintiff may present his case in a 

coherent, orderly fashion and without the risk of prejudicing his case on the merits.” See 

Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 n.2 (9th Cir. 1977); Best 

Western Int’l Inc. v. Paradise Hospitality Inc., No. CV-14-00337-PHX-DGC, 2014 WL 

4209246, at *5 (D. Ariz. Aug. 26, 2014).1

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is denied.

Dated this 26th day of February, 2020.

1 Defendants suggest that the Court should not consider Plaintiffs’ argument on 

foreseeable harm because it was raised in a footnote. Doc. 72 at 7. But Plaintiffs’ 

expanded on this argument in the body of their response. See Doc. 70 at 5.

Case 2:16-cv-01494-DGC Document 73 Filed 02/26/20 Page 2 of 2