MGA Entertainment, Inc. v. Dynacraft BSC, Inc.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: December 11, 2019
• Docket: 2:17-cv-08222
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

O 11

44 55 66 77 88 United States District Court 99 Central District of California

1111 MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC; THE Case No. 2:17-cv-08222-ODW (KSx) LITTLE TIKES COMPANY., 1122 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiffs, RECONSIDERATION [109] and 1133 v. DENYING EX PARTE 1144 APPLICATION TO STAY [91] DYNACRAFT BSC, INC., et al. 1155 Defendants. 1166 1177 1188 I. INTRODUCTION 1199 Presently before the Court is Defendant Dynacraft’s (“Dynacraft”) Motion for 2200 Reconsideration of the Court’s Order striking Dynacraft’s Expert Report (“Motion”). 2211 (Mot. for Recons. (“Mot.”), ECF No. 109.) For reasons that follow, Dynacraft’s 2222 Motion is DENIED.1 2233 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2244 The Court addressed the factual allegations and procedural history relevant to 2255 this case in its Minute Order granting Plaintiffs MGA Entertainment, Inc.’s and The 2266 Little Tikes Company’s (collectively “MGA”) Motion to Strike Late-Served Expert 2277

2288 1 After considering the papers filed in connection with this Motion, the Court deemed this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 1 Report, and incorporates that discussion here by reference. (See Min. Order, ECF 2 No. 108.) On April 30, 2019, the Court granted MGA’s Motion to Strike Dynacraft’s 3 Late-Served Expert Report (Min. Order 4–5.), and on May 3, 2019, the Court granted 4 Dynacraft’s Motion to Strike MGA’s Late-Served Expert Report (Min. Order 4, ECF 5 No. 112.) On May 3, 2019, Dynacraft filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of 6 only the Court’s Order striking Dynacraft’s Expert Report, pursuant to Local Rule 7- 7 18. (Mot.) 8 III. LEGAL STANDARD 9 A motion for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-18 may be made on the 10 following grounds: 11 (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could 12 not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the 13 time of such decision, or 14 (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or 15 (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented 16 to the Court before such decision. 17 C.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-18; see In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Mortg.-Backed Sec. Litig., 18 966 F. Supp. 2d 1031, 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Consistent with Local Rule 7-18, “a 19 motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 20 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 21 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 22 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). “Whether to grant a motion 23 for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-18 is a matter within the court’s discretion.” 24 Daghlian v. DeVry Univ., Inc., 582 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1251 (C.D. Cal. 2007). “No 25 motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument 26 made in support of or in opposition to the original motion.” C.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-18; 27 Rosenfeld v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 57 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 1995). 28 1 IV. DISCUSSION 2 Dynacraft brings this Motion pursuant to Local Rule 7-18(c), asserting that the 3 Court failed to consider material facts. (See Mot.) Dynacraft asserts two arguments: 4 first, the Court failed to account for the Parties’ July 25, 2018 Stipulation 5 (“Stipulation”) (ECF No. 58) and second, the Court failed to account for Dynacraft’s 6 justified reliance on the parties’ Rule 26(f) agreement. (Mot. 5.) The Court finds both 7 arguments unpersuasive and fail to satisfy the taxing burden of Local Rule 7-18. 8 A. Failure to Account for the Parties’ July 25, 2018 Stipulation 9 Dynacraft asserts that this Court failed to account for the parties’ Stipulation, 10 specifically the Court did not reference the phrase “issue for which party bears the 11 burden of proof.” (Mot. 2.) Dynacraft contends that its expert reports are rebuttal 12 reports which fell under the March 18, 2019 rebuttal deadline, rather than the January 13 18, 2019 deadline for opening expert reports. Dynacraft contends this means that their 14 expert report should not have been stricken as untimely. (Mot. 4–5.) 15 The Court disagrees. To begin, these arguments merely repeat Dynacraft’s 16 original arguments opposing MGA’s motion to strike. (See Def.’s Opp’n 3–4, ECF 17 No. 93.) Further, the Court considered and rejected Dynacraft’s arguments. (See Min. 18 Order 4–5.) The Court considered the Parties’ Stipulation, including the noted 19 language. The Court concluded that Dynacraft’s expert report did not serve as a 20 rebuttal report, “[f]inding that the expert witness testimony of Bruce Isaacson does not 21 rebut any expert from MGA, [and thus] is not properly considered rebuttal evidence.” 22 (Min. Order 4–5.) Thus, the Court found the report untimely and subject to exclusion. 23 Accordingly, Dynacraft’s first argument fails. See C.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-18 24 (“No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written 25 argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion.”). 26 B. Failure to Account for Dynacraft’s Justified Reliance 27 Dynacraft’s substantial justification argument also fails because it constitutes an 28 impermissible new offering because it was never raised. A district court does not 1 | abuse its discretion by disregarding arguments made for the first time in a motion for 2 || reconsideration. Rosenfeld, 57 F.3d at 811. “A mere attempt by the moving party to 3 || reargue its position by directing [the] Court to additional case law and arguments 4 | which it clearly could have made earlier, but did not 1s not the purpose of motions for 5 || reconsideration under Local Rule 7-18.” McKinsty v. Swift Transp. Co., of Ariz., No. 6 || ED 15-cv-01317-VAP-SP, 2017 WL 8943524, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2017). 7 Dynacraft concedes that its opposition omits any argument that its failure to file 8 | an initial expert witness report was harmless or “substantially justified.” (Mot. 5) 9 || Yet, Dynacraft points to the record to demonstrate where it substantially relied on the 10 | Stipulation. (Mot. 5.) Accordingly, Dynacraft confirms that the argument was 11 || available, and it failed to raise it in their opposition. Nor does Dynacraft explain why 12 || it failed to argue “substantial justification” in its opposition. Local Rule 7-18 is not 13 || meant to serve as a “do-over.” See In re 5-Hour Energy Mktg. & Sales Practices 14 || Litig., No. ML 13-2438 PSG (PLAx), 2017 WL 4772567, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 15 | 2017) (‘motions for reconsideration are not intended to afford the movant an 16 || opportunity for a do-over.”). Accordingly, this argument fails as well and Dynacraft 17 || is precluded from raising it now. 18 V. CONCLUSION 19 For the reasons discussed above, Dynacraft’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF 20 | No. 109) is DENIED. Furthermore, MGA’s Ex Parte Application (ECF No. 91) to 21 || stay pending ruling on Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot. 22 23 December 11, 2019 24 . “ 05 Gilli 26 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE