Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05438/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05438-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

INTERNMATCH, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NXTBIGTHING, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05438-JST 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: ECF No. 146

On February 8, 2016, the Court entered an order which found that Defendants wilfully 

spoliated evidence such that Plaintiff was entitled to an adverse inference instruction, a preclusion 

order regarding the destroyed evidence, and attorneys’ fees. ECF No. 114 (spoliation order). On 

March 8, 2016, Defendants appealed the order to the Ninth Circuit.

1

 ECF No. 116 (notice of 

appeal). 

On June 9, 2016 – four months after the Court issued the spoliation order – Defendants

filed a request seeking leave of court to file a motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 146.

No motion for reconsideration may be brought without leave of court. See Civil L.R. 7-

9(a). “The moving party must specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion.” 

Civil L.R. 7-9(b) (emphasis added). Additionally, the party must show one of the following:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, 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. 

The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence 

the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law 

at the time of the interlocutory order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law 

occurring after the time of such order; or

 

1

The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on June 10, 2016. See ECF No. 

147, Ex. A.

Case 3:14-cv-05438-JST Document 152 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 3
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

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or 

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court 

before such interlocutory order.

Id.

The Court finds that Defendants have not shown reasonable diligence in bringing their

request. The Court issued the spoliation on February 8, 2016, but Defendants raise new facts that 

were discovered before the Court issued the spoliation order. For example, Defendants highlight a 

letter Batterman received from his insurance carrier on February 5, 2016 regarding his insurance 

payouts. See ECF No. 146 at 6. Defendants also point to the results of data recovery conducted

by DriveSavers on devices not related to Nxtbigthing. Id. at 5–6. Data recovery efforts took place 

in early January 2016. Id. at 6. The Court makes no finding as to the materiality of this 

information but stresses that Defendants had an opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration 

promptly thereafter to raise the emergence of these allegedly new and material facts.

2

 Defendants 

additionally cite to evidence that Batterman’s previous employer suffered a power surge in 2011. 

ECF No. 146 at 7. This certainly cannot be considered a new fact that emerged after the Court’s 

order. 

Defendants also argue at length that the Court failed to consider material facts or 

arguments raised by Defendants in the proceedings leading up to the spoliation order. These 

arguments merely rehash the Defendants’ earlier papers and do not support the filing of a motion 

for reconsideration. The Court carefully considered the evidence and arguments originally placed 

before the Court on the spoliation motion. Moreover, even if the Court had neglected to consider 

any of the facts or arguments identified by Defendants, they fail to explain why they waited more 

than four months after the Court’s spoliation ruling ‒ and after the grant of summary judgment to 

Plaintiff on most of its claims, ECF No. 145 ‒ to seek reconsideration. 

/ / /

/ / /

 

2

The Court additionally notes that Defendants repeatedly state in their motion that the facts are

supported by the “Separately filed Declaration of Chad Batterman in Support of Motion for 

Leave,” ECF No. 146 at 5. Defendants did not file Batterman’s supporting declaration until five 

days after filing this instant request.

Case 3:14-cv-05438-JST Document 152 Filed 06/14/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Defendants have not shown reasonable diligence in requesting leave of court to file a 

motion for reconsideration. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b). Accordingly, the request is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05438-JST Document 152 Filed 06/14/16 Page 3 of 3