Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01946/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01946-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Stockholders Suits

---

1 

Case No. 5:13-cv-01946-BLF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FITEQ, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

VENTURE CORPORATION, LTD., et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01946-BLF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(Re: Docket No. 239) 

Defendants Venture Corporation, LTD and Cebelian Holding, Pte, LTD seek 

reconsideration of this court’s order denying their motion to retroactively seal certain documents.1 

The burden to a party seeking reconsideration is high, and as a result courts rarely grant such 

relief.2 Venture fails to meet this burden. Venture does not explain how the court can seal 

information on one part of the public docket, but leave the same information available to the public 

on other parts of the docket. Plaintiff Fiteq, Inc. has the better of the argument. The motion is 

DENIED. 

 

1 See Docket No. 264. 

2 See Civ. L.R. 7-9; Samet v. Procter & Gamble Co., Case No. 12-cv-01891, 2014 WL 1782821, at 

*2 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2014) (“Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend 

a previous order, the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 

finality and conservation of judicial resources.” (quoting Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of 

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000))).

Case 5:13-cv-01946-BLF Document 290 Filed 07/15/15 Page 1 of 2
Case 5:13-cv-01946-BLF Document 290 Filed 07/15/15 Page 2 of 2