Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNA GATTI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG (DMR)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 167

At the July 23, 2015 discovery management conference, the court ordered the parties and 

third party Russell Reynolds Associates, Inc. (“RRA”) to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff Loop 

AI Labs Inc.’s two subpoenas to RRA and to submit any remaining disputes in one eight-page 

joint letter by August 13, 2015. The court also ordered the parties to review the Northern 

District’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct. [Docket No. 156 (minute order).] 

On August 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion for leave to file excess pages 

with respect to the joint letter regarding the RRA subpoenas (Docket No. 162), to which RRA

filed an opposition on August 12, 2015 (Docket No. 164). The court denied the administrative 

motion on the same day. [Docket No. 165 (Aug. 12, 2015 Order).] In the court’s order denying 

the administrative motion, the court stated that it “uses an eight-page joint letter process to force 

the parties to focus on those arguments that are the most important to discovery disputes.” The 

court noted its concern that if it enforced the original August 13, 2015 deadline for the joint letter, 

the letter would not reflect the parties’ best work product, and accordingly extended the deadline 

for the parties to file the joint letter to August 17, 2015. (Aug. 12, 2015 Order.) Following the 

court’s order, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of its administrative motion1(Docket No. 166) and 

 

1

The court notes that there is no provision in the Local Rules permitting parties to file reply briefs 

in connection with motions for administrative relief.

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 171 Filed 08/14/15 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

a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 167).

Civil Local Rule 7-9 provides that “[b]efore the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the 

claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may make a motion before 

a Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any 

interlocutory order . . . . No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining 

leave of Court to file the motion.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). A motion for reconsideration may be made 

on one of three grounds: (1) a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was 

presented to the court, which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the party applying for 

reconsideration did not know at the time of the order for which reconsideration is sought; (2) the

emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a manifest failure by the court to 

consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments presented before such order. Civ. L.R. 7-

9(b)(1)-(3). The moving party may not reargue any written or oral argument previously asserted 

to the court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). 

In its motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff does not argue that any 

of these enumerated grounds for reconsideration are present. Instead, it argues that the court 

denied Plaintiff’s administrative motion “on the basis of representations made in the RRA 

Opposition that simply were not true.” (Pl.’s Mot. 1.) This is incorrect. The court rejected the 

request for additional pages by explaining that it uses an eight-page joint letter process for the 

resolution of discovery disputes to ensure the parties focus on the most important arguments. The 

court notes that it spent three hours with counsel during the July 23, 2015 discovery management 

conference developing measures to manage the attorneys’ manifest acrimony, and to make the 

discovery process run more smoothly. The court expects the parties to meet and confer to sort out

the vast majority of their disputes. The parties should not count on the ability to run to the court to 

resolve every disagreement, big or small. See N.D. Guidelines for Professional Conduct, § 10(a) 

(“Before filing a motion, a lawyer should engage in a good faith effort to resolve the issue. In 

particular, civil discovery motions should be filed sparingly.”). Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file 

 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 171 Filed 08/14/15 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

a motion for reconsideration is denied. The parties are ordered to meet and confer in a good 

faith effort to resolve their disputes. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2015

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 171 Filed 08/14/15 Page 3 of 3