Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02555/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02555-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

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

1

MDY and Donnelly’s request for oral argument is denied because they have fully

briefed the issues and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Lake at Las Vegas

Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Dev. Malibu Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MDY Industries, LLC, 

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 

vs.

Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.; and

Vivendi Games, Inc., 

Defendants/Counterclaimants. _________________________________

Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.; and

Vivendi Games, Inc.,

 Third-Party Plaintiffs,

vs.

Michael Donnelly,

Third-Party Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2555-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On March 10, 2009, the Court issued an order denying a stay pending appeal of the

permanent injunction entered on Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. and Vivendi Games, Inc.’s

tortious interference claim against MDY Industries, Inc. and Michael Donnelly. Dkt. #116

at 5-7. MDY and Donnelly have filed a motion for reconsideration of that order. Dkt. #118.

The Court will deny the motion.1

Case 2:06-cv-02555-DGC Document 120 Filed 03/25/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

This District has identified four circumstances where a motion for reconsideration will

be granted: (1) the moving party has discovered material differences in fact or law from

those presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision, and the party could not

previously have known of the factual or legal differences through the exercise of reasonable

diligence, (2) material factual events have occurred since the Court’s initial decision, (3)

there has been a material change in the law since the Court’s initial decision, or (4) the

moving party makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider material facts

that were presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision. See Motorola, Inc. v. J.B.

Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also LRCiv

7.2(g)(1). None of these circumstances has been established by MDY and Donnelly.

In its March 10, 2009 order, the Court denied a stay with respect to the tortious

interference claim because MDY and Donnelly did not identify serious questions that will

be raised by their tortious interference appeal. Dkt. #16 at 6. In support of their stay request,

MDY and Donnelly argued only that serious questions exist with respect to the copyright and

DMCA claims and that “[w]ithout a copyright and DMCA violation, Blizzard could not meet

the elements for tortious interference with contract.” Dkt. #111 at 5 n.14. The Court rejected

that argument. Dkt. #116 at 6-7.

MDY and Donnelly now identify eight new reasons why their tortious interfere appeal

may raise serious questions: (1) “honest persuasion” is not limited to competition, (2) the

Court’s intent analysis was incomplete, (3) MDY was not “participating” in the breach by

merely selling and supporting software openly and honestly, (4) MDY’s profit motive does

not favor Blizzard, (5) MDY was privileged to avoid Warden, (6) Glider was not the “but

for” cause of the breaches, (7) the relationship between the parties favors MDY, and (8) a

reasonable jury could find in favor of MDY. Dkt. #118 at 1-2. MDY and Donnelly do not

explain why they failed to raise these issues earlier, as required by the Court’s local rules.

See LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). They note that the Court limited their brief to seven pages, but they did

not assert in the brief that they had insufficient space to make all arguments. See Dkt. #111.

Nor did they seek an extension of the page limit. MDY and Donnelly know that the Court

Case 2:06-cv-02555-DGC Document 120 Filed 03/25/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

previously has granted page-limit extensions in this case. See Dkt. ##38, 72. 

Having lost the only argument for a stay that they chose to make, MDY and Donnelly

now seek reconsideration on the basis of eight entirely new arguments. A motion for

reconsideration, however, “is not a forum for the moving party to make new arguments not

raised in its original briefs.” James v. Schriro, No. CIV 00-1118 PHX-NVW, 2008 WL

3540504, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 12, 2008) (citing N.W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip.,

Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988)); see LRCiv 7.2(g)(1).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. MDY and Donnelly’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #118) is denied.

2. MDY and Donnelly’s request to stay permanent injunction pending disposition

of motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #119) is denied as moot.

DATED this 25th day of March, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-02555-DGC Document 120 Filed 03/25/09 Page 3 of 3