Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00126/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00126-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent 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 

GoDaddy.com LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RPost Communications Limited, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-00126-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is GoDaddy.com LLC (“GoDaddy”)’s Motion for 

Reconsideration of Limited Portion of the Court’s March 24, 2016 Order. (Doc. 287). 

The Court now rules on the motion. 

I. Legal Standard 

 According to the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of Arizona: 

 The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an 

Order 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. Any such motion shall point out with specificity the 

matters that the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by 

the Court, any new matters being brought to the Court’s attention for the 

first time and the reasons they were not presented earlier, and any specific 

modifications being sought in the Court’s Order. No motion for 

reconsideration of an Order may repeat any oral or written argument made 

by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in 

the Order. Failure to comply with this subsection may be grounds for denial 

of the motion. 

LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). As a general matter, motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 290 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

appropriate only if: (1) the movant presents newly discovered evidence; (2) the Court 

committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) an intervening 

change in controlling law has occurred. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. 

AC & S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, a party should not file a 

motion to reconsider to ask a court “to rethink what the court had already thought 

through—rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 

F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983). 

II. Analysis 

In the Ninth Circuit, when a court permits a litigant to seal information attached to 

a dispositive motion from the public purview “it must base its decision on a compelling 

reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or 

conjecture.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178, 1179 (9th Cir. 

2006) (emphasis added). Thus, the litigant must provide the Court with particular reasons 

as to why the material merits sealing treatment. See, e.g., id. at 1184 (“Simply mentioning 

a general category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage 

with the documents, does not satisfy the burden.”); LRCiv 5.6(b) (“Any motion . . . to file 

a document under seal must set forth a clear statement of the facts and legal authority 

justifying the filing of the document under seal[.]”). In this case, GoDaddy provided 

“general categories of privilege” in its motion to seal but did not explain why the 

documents deserved sealing treatment. See (Doc. 262). GoDaddy now aspires to provide 

those reasons in its motion for reconsideration. 

 Consequently, GoDaddy’s motion for reconsideration hinges on this question: 

Should the Court grant the motion despite GoDaddy’s lack of diligence? GoDaddy 

devotes the first four pages of its motion for reconsideration to recycle the same argument 

presented in its motion to seal, namely, that the data should be sealed because it is 

“sensitive business information” and “confidential.” Compare (id.), with (Doc. 287 at 1–

4). Finally, on the fifth and sixth pages of its motion, GoDaddy outlines new, legitimate 

reasons as to why the data should be considered either a trade secret or business 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 290 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

information that might harm GoDaddy’s competitive standing. See (Doc. 287 at 5–6). 

Unfortunately, GoDaddy neglects to explain why it “could not” have brought these facts 

to the Court’s “attention earlier with reasonable diligence” or set forth “the reasons [why] 

they were not presented earlier.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). GoDaddy instead assumes that the 

Court should have understood why this data warranted sealing treatment simply because 

GoDaddy proclaimed in its motion to seal that the information was “sensitive” and 

“confidential.”1

 As stated above, “[s]imply mentioning a general category of privilege, 

without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not 

satisfy the burden.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. 

 Notwithstanding the deficiencies in GoDaddy’s motion, the Court finds that the 

extremely limited nature of GoDaddy’s redaction requests and the fact that the data 

sought to be redacted is not directly associated with the dispositive issues presented in the 

motion to exclude, weighs in favor of permitting GoDaddy to redact the specific data 

outlined in its motion for reconsideration. Based on the reasons outlined in GoDaddy’s 

motion for reconsideration, the Court is persuaded that disclosure of the material at this 

stage of litigation could cause harm to GoDaddy’s competitive standing and will 

therefore allow the information to be redacted.2

III. Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth above, 

IT IS ORDERED that GoDaddy’s Motion for Reconsideration of Limited Portion 

 

1

 Of course, GoDaddy also insisted that publicly disclosed Form S-1 data and the 

educational background of RPost’s damages expert was “confidential.” See (Doc. 262). 

Apparently, as this information is not included in GoDaddy’s motion for reconsideration, 

the Court correctly assumed that the material was not a trade secret or sealable business 

information. 

2

 The Court makes abundantly clear, however, that although it is permitting 

GoDaddy to redact this data in regards to its motion to exclude, the Court’s ruling has no 

effect on whether or not GoDaddy can seal or redact this information at trial. The parties 

should remember that trials are conducted as public proceedings. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 290 Filed 03/31/16 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

of the Court’s March 24, 2016 Order (Doc. 287) is GRANTED.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall redact the highlighted 

information in GoDaddy’s lodged proposed redactions for all filings due April 1, 2016. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file under seal the 

documents lodged at Docket Nos. 288 and 289. 

 Dated this 31st day of March, 2016. 

 

 

3

 Generally, the Court is required to allow an opposing party the opportunity to 

respond before granting a motion for reconsideration. See LRCiv 7.2(g)(2). Unlike the 

underlying motion to seal, see (Doc. 262 at 2), GoDaddy does not state in its motion for 

reconsideration whether or not RPost consents to the motion. However, because the 

motion being reconsidered was not opposed, the Court finds a response from RPost to be 

unnecessary. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 290 Filed 03/31/16 Page 4 of 4