Chen v. BMW of North America, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 22, 2022
• Docket: 4:21-cv-03531
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LAP-PING CHEN, Case No. 21-cv-03531-DMR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 9 v. RULE 60(B)(6) MOTION FOR RELIEF

10 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 59 11 Defendant.

12 The court denies Defendant’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion for 13 relief. Defendant failed to comply with Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), 14 which requires that any party moving for reconsideration of an interlocutory order must first 15 obtain leave of court to file the motion. Nor does Defendant’s motion address any of the pertinent 16 factors, including “that a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to 17 the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought,” the 18 “emergence of new material facts or a change of law,” or a “manifest failure by the court to 19 consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Whether to grant leave 20 to file a motion for reconsideration under Rule 7-9 is committed to the court’s sound discretion. See Montebueno Mktg., Inc. v. Del Monte Corp.—USA, 570 F. App’x 675, 676 (9th 21 Cir. 2014) (citing Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007)). There is no reason 22 why Defendant could not have articulated any concerns about a production schedule or trade 23 secrets when the parties first raised this dispute months ago. 24 Furthermore, Defendant has not established that this discovery dispute amounts to an 25 “extraordinary circumstance” that warrants reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(6). See Latshaw v. 26 Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006) (Rule 60(b)(6) is to be “used 27 1 extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an 2 || erroneous judgment. ... Accordingly, a party who moves for such relief must demonstrate both 3 || injury and circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from proceeding with the action in 4 || aproper fashion” (citations omitted).). 5 On a practical note, the discovery needs to be completed. The parties are ordered to 6 || immediately meet and confer to reach reasonable solutions regarding a rolling production of the 7 || FASTA data of the subject vehicle, as well as Defendant’s stated concerns about trade 8 secrets. The court notes that many cases filed in this district deal with sensitive commercial 9 information. The vast majority of parties are able to work out a reasonable approach that includes 10 redaction of truly non-relevant protected information and production of the relevant information ll subject to a protective order. There is no reason why the parties cannot come up with a similar, D mutually agreeable solution here. If there are any remaining disputes, the parties shall file a joint

B discovery letter by February 28, 2022. Given the disproportionate amount of time the court has

4 had to expend on what should have been a straightforward discovery issue, the court will sanction

15 any party that takes an unreasonable position and also may require party representatives to appear z 16 at a discovery hearing along with counsel. This should not be viewed as an invitation to seek

7 sanctions; the court will determine whether sanctions are appropriate. DISTR Ke Loy Z 18 S CS IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 9 Dated: February 22, 2022 > DENIED “(\_ a □ 21 LP — 22 £ > aia noe = ry O Ce 54 iinpettes Magistrate Judge AY CB LY 24 VB AO ISTRIC 25 26 27 28