Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bodyguard Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

March 7, 2019

BODYGUARD PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
DOE 1 dba showboxappdownload.com; KEITH NORTON, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT KEITH NORTON

          JILL A. OTAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Bodyguard Productions, Inc's (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration of Order [Doc. #35] Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation [Doc. # 33], filed March 4, 2019. This matter shall be decided without a hearing pursuant to Rule 7.2(e) of the Local Rules of Practice for the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. For the reasons articulated below, the Court DENIES the Motion.

         BACKGROUND

         On December 12, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation to Grant in Part and Deny in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Keith Norton (“F&R”). Doc. No. 33.

         On December 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed Written Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Keith Norton. Doc. No. 34.

         On February 21, 2019, the Court issued an Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation to Grant in Part and Deny in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Keith Norton (“Order”). Doc. No. 35. Default Judgment entered the same day. Doc. No. 36

         The present Motion followed. Doc. No. 37.

         DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 59(e). In particular, Plaintiff argues that the Court's conclusion regarding the hours reasonably expended in the action was based on a manifest error of fact.

         FRCP 59(e) allows parties to file a motion to alter or amend judgment within 28 days after the entry of judgment and permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). A successful motion for reconsideration must accomplish two goals. “First, a motion for reconsideration must demonstrate some reason why the Court should reconsider its prior decision. Second, the motion must set forth facts or law of a ‘strongly convincing' nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Jacob v. United States, 128 F.Supp.2d 638, 641 (D. Haw. 2000) (citing Decker Coal Co. v. Hartman, 706 F.Supp. 745, 750 (D. Mont. 1988)) (citation omitted). Mere disagreement with a court's analysis in a previous order is not a sufficient basis for reconsideration. White v. Sabatino, 424 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1274 (D. Haw. 2006) (citing Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F.Supp. 1572 (D. Haw. 1988)); Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F.Supp.2d 1253, 1269 (D. Haw. 2005). “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)); McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (“Since specific grounds for a motion to amend or alter are not listed in the rule, the district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the motion.”).

         The Ninth Circuit has identified grounds justifying reconsideration under FRCP 59(e):

In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). While a Rule 59(e) motion is not limited to those four grounds, alteration or amendment of a judgment is “an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Id. (quoting McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255 n.1). “A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (citing Kona Enters., 229 F.2d at 890).

         In the present case, there is no basis for reconsideration. Plaintiff proffers that the Court erroneously determined that counsel recycled work product. According to Plaintiff, counsel could not have recycled work product because it filed a motion for early discovery in this case on July 31, 2018, while the second motion for early discovery in Venice PI, LLC v. Galbtross Technologies, LLC, Civil No. 18-00192 LEK-RT was filed on August 3, 2018. Plaintiff mischaracterizes the Order as determining that the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.