UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NORGREN AUTOMATION

SOLUTION, LLC, 

Civil Action No.14-cv-13400 

Plaintiff, HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

v.

PHD, INC., 

Defendant. 

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS [#29] AND CANCELLING HEARING

On April 14, 2015, Defendant filed its Second Motion to Stay Proceedings. See

Dkt. No. 29. On March 18, 2015, this Court denied Defendant’s original Motion for

a Stay for several reasons, including the unfair prejudice to Plaintiff if a stay were

entered in these proceedings. See Dkt. No. 26 at 3-5. The Court also found that a stay

would not simplify all of the issues being litigated in this case, that discovery had

already begun and a trial had been set for the liability phase of these proceedings. Id.

at 5.

Defendant again moves for a stay of these proceedings because the United

States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) granted reexamination proceedings

related to the claims in the patents-in-suit on March 23, 2015. As such, Defendant

-1-

2:14-cv-13400-GAD-MKM Doc # 31 Filed 04/15/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 438
maintains that its request for a stay is no longer premature. However, the Court did

not resolve Defendant’s original Motion for Stay solely on the basis that the motion

was premature. See Dkt. No. 26 (“In any event, even if reexamination had been

granted when the instant motion was filed, the Court would nonetheless deny

Defendant’s request for a stay.”)

The remainder of Defendant’s reasons for seeking a stay of the instant

proceedings are arguments that have already been considered and rejected by the

Court in its original decision. As such, Defendant’s Motion appears to be an untimely

Motion for Reconsideration, which would have been due no later than April 6, 2015. 

Moreover, “a motion for reconsideration is not properly used as a vehicle to re-hash

old arguments . . . .” Smith ex rel. Smith v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Sch., 298 F. Supp.

2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (citing Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v.

Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.1998)). Defendant’s present motion simply does

not remedy the defects in its original filing. Defendant has failed in its burden

showing circumstances justify an exercise of this Court’s discretion to grant a stay. 

Additionally, and inexcusably, Defendant fails to indicate in its present motion

whether it sought concurrence from Plaintiff for the relief sought in its present motion. 

This is contrary to the local rules of this Court. 

LR 7.1: Motion Practice 

-2-

2:14-cv-13400-GAD-MKM Doc # 31 Filed 04/15/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 439
(a) Seeking Concurrence in Motions and Requests.

(1) The movant must ascertain whether the contemplated

motion . . . will be opposed. If the movant obtains

concurrence, the parties or other persons involved may

make the subject matter of the contemplated motion or

request a matter of record by stipulated order.

(2) If concurrence is not obtained, the motion or request must

state:

(A) there was a conference between attorneys or

unrepresented parties and other persons entitled to be

heard on the motion in which the movant explained

the nature of the motion or request and its legal basis

and requested but did not obtain concurrence in the

relief sought; or 

(B) despite reasonable efforts specified in the motion or

request, the movant is unable to conduct a

conference.

E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(a). 

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Second Motion to Stay

Proceedings [#29] is DENIED. 

Dated: April 15, 2015 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

-3-

2:14-cv-13400-GAD-MKM Doc # 31 Filed 04/15/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 440