Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01497/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01497-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

*E-FILED 12/5/05*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DIGITAL ENVOY, INC., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

GOOGLE, INC., 

Defendant.

 /

NO. 5:04-cv-1497 RS

ORDER DENYING 

DIGITAL'S REQUEST FOR

LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff Digital Envoy, Inc. ("Digital") requests leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the

Court's order granting in part and denying in part the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant

Google, Inc. ("Google"), issued on November 8, 2005. Specifically, Digital asks the Court to reconsider

its finding that the evidence fails to establish that Google engaged in willful misconduct. Based on all papers

filed to date, as well as on the papers and arguments submitted in conjunction with the summary judgment

motion, the Court denies Digital's request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration on the basis that

Digital has failed to fulfill the requirements set forth in Civil L.R. 7-9.

Civil L.R. 7-9(b) states in relevant part that the party moving for reconsideration must specifically

show:

Case 5:04-cv-01497-RS Document 387 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 4
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

(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; or,

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order;

or,

(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.

This Rule conforms to the grounds set forth by the Ninth Circuit: that a motion for reconsideration

may be based only on: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or,

(3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Painting Industry of Hawaii Market

Recovery Fund v. United States Department of the Air Force, 756 F. Supp. 452, 453 (D. Hawaii 1990). 

Digital argues that the Court failed to consider material facts which were presented in its opposition

papers: namely, email correspondence and deposition testimony, which according to Digital establishes that

Google understood it could not ship Digital's proprietary databases to third party websites or use Digital's

data on those sites. Contrary to Digital's contention, however, and as noted in the order, the Court

reviewed all evidence presented, including each and every identified email and deposition before concluding

that the evidence failed to establish Google engaged in willful misconduct in violation of the parties' License

Agreement. See e.g., Order at p. 6, lines 17-21. The Court does not disagree with Digital that the

evidence establishes the parties negotiated, understood, and agreed that their License Agreement contained

various limitations on Google's use of Digital's proprietary technology. As the order makes plain, however,

the Court simply disagrees with Digital that such evidence can be interpreted to reflect Google's willful

misconduct in light of the total absence of evidence that Google operated with an understanding that its

conduct violated that license. As a result, this is not a situation where the Court failed to consider evidence

presented but one where, instead, a party simply disagrees with the result reached by the Court. 

For these reasons, reconsideration is not warranted and Digital's request for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 5:04-cv-01497-RS Document 387 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 4
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 3

Dated: December 5, 2005 /s/ Richard Seeborg 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-01497-RS Document 387 Filed 12/05/05 Page 3 of 4
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER WAS ELECTRONICALLY

PROVIDED TO:

Brian R. Blackman bblackman@sheppardmullin.com 

P. Craig Cardon ccardon@sheppardmullin.com, msariano@sheppardmullin.com 

Charles Tait Graves tgraves@wsgr.com 

Stephen C. Holmes sholmes@wsgr.com, pmarquez@wsgr.com 

David H. Kramer dkramer@wsgr.com, dgrubbs@wsgr.com 

Michael S. Kwun mkwun@google.com 

David L. Lansky dlansky@wsgr.com 

Chan S. Park cpark@wsgr.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered

for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 12/5/05 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:04-cv-01497-RS Document 387 Filed 12/05/05 Page 4 of 4