Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02352/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02352-7/pdf.json

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

---

Case No.: 5:18-cv-02352-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

1

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NETFUEL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:18-cv-02352-EJD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 304

On March 10, 2020, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s 

expert reports. See Dkt. 293; see also Dkt. 301 (public unsealed copy of order). In this order, the 

Court declined to allow Plaintiff leave to file supplemental expert reports. Plaintiff argues this 

was an error and that its motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration should be granted. 

NetFuel, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration (“Recon. Mot.”), Dkt. 304. 

The Court disagrees. Plaintiff has not presented adequate grounds for the Court to reconsider its 

earlier ruling. The Court thus DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration. 

Reconsideration of a final judgment, order, or proceeding is appropriate if (1) at the time of 

the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, a material difference in fact or law exists 

from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which 

reconsideration is sought; (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 

unjust; or (3) if new material facts emerge or a material change of law occurs after the time of the 

interlocutory order. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Absent these three things, “a motion for 

reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 

Case 5:18-cv-02352-EJD Document 305 Filed 03/25/20 Page 1 of 3
Case No.: 5:18-cv-02352-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 

890 (9th Cir. 2000)). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Id. (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

While Plaintiff never expressly identifies what ground it rests its motion for 

reconsideration on, the Court believes it rests its argument on the second ground, i.e., that the 

Court committed clear error and/or that the Court’s initial decision was manifestly unjust. 

Plaintiff first argues that the Court granted Defendant’s motion to strike “with prejudice” and that 

this was an error. Recon Mot. at 2. In Plaintiff’s view, because Defendant never asked the Court 

to strike Plaintiff’s expert reports “with prejudice,” the Court erred by striking the reports with 

prejudice. Id. This argument is baffling. Nowhere in the Court’s order does it use the term “with 

prejudice.” Moreover, Plaintiff identifies no case law which states that courts lack the ability to 

dismiss expert reports “with prejudice.” The Court is thus confused—what is the alleged error? 

Likewise, Plaintiff never identifies what injustice (if any) follows from striking an expert’s report 

with prejudice. The Court does not understand Plaintiff’s grounds for reconsideration. 

Plaintiff next argues that the Court wrongly considered an argument raised for the first 

time in a reply brief. See id. (citing Turtle Island Restoration Network v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 

672 F.3d 1160, 1166 n.8 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that arguments raised for the first time in a reply 

brief are waived). Plaintiff contends that Defendant “argued for the first time in its reply brief that 

the Court should grant its motion to strike with prejudice” and that, because of this, Plaintiff had 

no chance to respond to Defendant’s new argument. Recon Mot. at 2. This argument is equally 

confusing. A cursory review of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to strike reveals that 

Plaintiff put the issue of supplemental expert reports at issue. See Dkt. 276 at 25 n.13 (arguing 

that if the Court grants Defendant’s motion to strike, it should do so without prejudice and allow 

Plaintiff to serve a supplemental expert report). Defendant responded to this footnote in its reply 

brief and argued that supplemental reports should not be allowed. The Court agreed with 

Case 5:18-cv-02352-EJD Document 305 Filed 03/25/20 Page 2 of 3
Case No.: 5:18-cv-02352-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendant’s position and denied Plaintiff’s request to file supplemental expert reports. Thus, 

Defendant’s reply brief did not “raise an issue for the first time.” Instead, the reply brief replied to 

an issue that Plaintiff raised; something Defendant was permitted to do. 

Plaintiff further argues that the case law the Court relied on is inapposite. This case law, 

however, is neither new nor shows a “material change of law or fact.” The caselaw Plaintiff cites 

in its request for reconsideration, while relevant to the initial question of supplemental briefing, 

does not show that the Court committed a clear error. That Plaintiff declined to fully brief its 

request to file supplemental expert reports is not grounds to permit the Court to review its earlier 

ruling. See Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945 (noting that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy).

Plaintiff last argues that allowing supplemental expert reports would not disrupt the trial 

setting or the case schedule. Recon Mot. at 4. In Plaintiff’s view, since the Parties’ trial is not 

scheduled until December 2020 and its motions in limine are not due until October 1, 2020, 

supplemental expert reports would not delay the Parties or the Court. There are three problems 

with Plaintiff’s argument. First, Plaintiff does not allege that the Court committed “clear error” by 

citing scheduling concerns. Second, it ignores the unfair burden this would place on Defendant—

something the Court raised in its initial order. Defendant timely finished its expert report and 

already litigated the extensive deficiencies with Plaintiff’s reports. Third, it does not address the 

Court’s fear that allowing supplemental briefing would give Plaintiff a “second bite at the apple.” 

Plaintiff’s expert reports had significant deficiencies, which counsels against supplemental expert 

reports. Plaintiff fails to address this concern. 

Plaintiff has failed to provide grounds for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court 

DENIES Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-02352-EJD Document 305 Filed 03/25/20 Page 3 of 3