Independent Technologies LLC v. Otodata Wireless Network, Inc.

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9 INDEPENDENT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, d/b/a ANOVA, 10 Case No. 3:20-cv-00072-RJC-CLB Plaintiff,

11 ORDER vs.

12 OTODATA WIRELESS NETWORK, INC., a 13 Quebec, Canada Corporation, et al.,

14 Defendants.

15 16 Within one week of this Court issuing a preliminary injunction, Defendants move to limit 17 its scope under the guise of seeking clarification. However, Defendants have appealed the order 18 divesting the Court of its jurisdiction; thus, the Court denies their motion.1 19 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 20 The Court adopts the substantive facts of this case from its Order granting the preliminary 21 injunction, (ECF No. 86). After full briefing and a hearing, the Court issued an injunction 22 preventing Defendants from soliciting a list of clients identified by Plaintiff with certain 23

1 The parties also move to seal parts of their briefs and exhibits. Having already found the 24 information they seek to seal to be trade secrets, the Court grants these motions. See Kamakana v. 1 || exceptions. Ud.) A week after the filing of this order, Defendants now move to limit the injunction 2 || with their filing styled as an “Emergency Motion to Clarify Scope of Preliminary Injunction.” 3 || CECF No. 92.) Defendants seek to substantially limit the scope of the preliminary injunction by 4 || eliminating thirty-one clients from the aforementioned list. On April 22, 2020, Defendants filed a 5 || notice of appeal seeking appellate review of the preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 107.) 6 ANALYSIS 7 The Court cannot consider the merits of the motion as Defendants seek to “adjudicate 8 || substantial rights directly involved in the appeal.” Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co., 258 U.S. 165, 9 || 177 (1922). While a district court can issue an order to clarify or to supervise compliance with an 10 || injunction on appeal, the court may not substantially modify the injunction. A&M Records, Inc. v. 11 || Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2002). Despite the motion’s label, Defendants have 12 || not identified a single ambiguity in the Court’s order—rather, Defendants seek to limit the scope 13 || of the injunction. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion for a lack of jurisdiction. 14 CONCLUSION 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Emergency Motion for Clarification (ECF 16 || No. 90) is DENIED. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDER that Defendants’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 91) is GRANTED. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDER that Plaintiffs Motion to Seal (ECF No. 95) is GRANTED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: May 4, 2020. 21 : | 22 ROBERT €JJONES 23 United States/District Judge 24