Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02073/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02073-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNERGY TECH & DESIGN INC. d/b/a

ROAD ARMOR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JIM TERRY, SANDY TERRY, JIM

MEEKINS, DIXIE MEEKINS, JD

DISTRIBUTING, and ROAD ARMOR USA,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-02073 JSW

ORDER RE EMERGENCY MOTION

RE PROTECTIVE ORDER

In light of the late filing of Plaintiff’s emergency motion and the Court’s current

unavailability, without addressing the merits of the claims, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as

follows:

• the parties shall maintain the status quo until resolution of this motion and not

disclose any of the alleged trade secret information to defendant Jim Terry;

• Defendants shall file an opposition to the motion not to exceed 15 pages by no

later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 23, 2007;

• Plaintiff shall file a reply not to exceed 10 pages by no later than 4:00 p.m. on

Thursday, January 25, 2007;

• the hearing on the pending motion shall be specially set for Monday, January 29,

2007 at 1:30 p.m. If the Court determines that the matter is suitable for

resolution without oral argument, it will so advise the parties in advance of the

hearing date. If the parties wish to modify this schedule, they may submit for the

Case 3:06-cv-02073-JSW Document 68 Filed 01/19/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Court’s consideration a stipulation and proposed order demonstrating good cause

for any modification requested.

In addition, the Court notes that the emergency motion is essentially a motion for leave

to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order dated January 9, 2007 filed at the last

possible moment. Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, a motion for reconsideration may be made on

one of three grounds: (1) a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was

presented to the Court, which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the party applying for

reconsideration did not know at the time of the order; (2) the emergence of new material facts or

a change of law; or (3) a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive

legal arguments presented before entry of judgment. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). Although

the emergency motion presents a more extensive opportunity to brief the legal issues before the

Court, it does not appear to be based upon facts not previously before this Court. 

(Contra Emergency Motion at 1:21-22.) 

Although the Court is prepared to review its earlier decision based upon a showing of

manifest failure to consider dispositive legal arguments or another applicable ground for

reconsideration which the parties may now fully address, the Court admonishes the parties that

failure to address the requirements of a motion for reconsideration may, if warranted, result in

sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02073-JSW Document 68 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 2