United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [DKT.
VANESSA L. BRYANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Wiremold's July 8, 2019 Motion for
Reconsideration, [Dkt. 109], of the Court's denial of
Wiremold's Motion to Amend filed June 28, 2019. [Dkt.
108]. For the reasons that follow, Wiremold's Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED.
motion for reconsideration must be filed within 7 days of the
ruling sought to be reconsidered. D. Conn. L. Civil R.
7(c)(1). A motion for reconsideration must “be
accompanied by a memorandum setting forth concisely the
controlling decisions or data the movant believes the Court
overlooked.” Id. “Such motions will
generally be denied unless the movant can point to
controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked in
the initial decision or order.” Id.
standard for a motion for reconsideration “is strict,
and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the
moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that
the court overlooked-matters, in other words, that might
reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the
court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d
255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).
motion for reconsideration will only be granted on one of the
following three grounds: (1) an intervening change in the
law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to
correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation
Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992). Moreover,
“a motion to reconsider should not be granted where the
moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already
decided.” Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257.
Court's expressed reason for denying Wiremold's
Motion to Amend was the possibility that granting that motion
to assert an indirect infringement claim could require the
joinder of new parties and open a discovery pandora's box
leading to an excessive number of new depositions, numerous
motions for extension of time to complete discovery, and
ultimately delay in trying this case. Wiremold's
conclusory assurance that grant of its motion would not cause
“significant” delay acknowledged that additional
discovery would be required, while providing the court with
no basis to discern how much.
Motion for Reconsideration, Wiremold claims the court
improvidently denied its Motion to Amend because it failed to
consider its unsupported and conclusory assertion that
amendment would not “significantly” delay the
progress of the case. In its Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiffs makes a very different statement. There it states,
“the proposed amended complaint will not in any
way impact the discovery cut-off date or delay
trial.” [Dkt. 109 at 4] (emphasis added). Wiremold does
not assert it later discovered facts which enabled it to make
the later affirmative statement. Its later affirmative
statement undermines its original admission that some
unspecified and unquantified additional discovery would be
10, 2019 the Court conducted a previously scheduled discovery
status conference with the parties, and during that
conference Wiremold's counsel confirmed that the proposed
amendment would not result in Wiremold seeking to expand
discovery. It specifically represented that amendment would
likely expand slightly the scope of deposition topics but
would not require any additional depositions or require
joinder of any additional parties; and that because its
expert opinion addressed the claim(s) sought to be added,
T&B and its expert had ample notice and opportunity to
respond. T&B countered that granting the proposed
amendment would certainly make significant additional
discovery necessary and would result in delay and undue
prejudice to T&B.
opposed leave to amend arguing Wiremold failed to diligently
pursue the claim. [Dkt. 94]. It claims that Wiremold knew
T&B's invention was sold without receptacles and
therefore it had reason to know it could have asserted an
indirect infringement claim. Wiremold responds that it
learned from discovery facts which led it to understand it
had an indirect infringement claim and timely moved to amend
Court finds the motion for reconsideration was filed timely.
It further finds there is no asserted intervening change in
the law or newly available facts warranting reconsideration
of its denial of leave to amend. The court did not err and
instead made a decision reasonably drawn from the facts
presented by Wiremold. Given that Wiremold had a fair
opportunity to present its request for leave and failed to
meet its burden of persuasion, it would be manifestly unjust
to T&B to allow it to relitigate the matter with the
benefit of the court's reasoning. In addition, it would
undermine the principles of finality and judicial efficiency
to permit parties to litigate an issue repeatedly, especially
where, as occurred here, the party can change their argument
to eliminate the reasoning for the original decision.
court expressly reaches no conclusion as to whether Wiremold
had sufficient knowledge of facts to form the reasonable
basis to believe it had a claim for indirect infringement
prior to receiving discovery from T&B. Accordingly, it
expresses no conclusion that the doctrine of claim preclusion
or res judicata ...