Indect USA Corp. v. Park Assist, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Roger T. Benitez (author)
Analysis
The court considered two motions for leave to supplement the summary judgment record filed by the parties in a patent and trade secret dispute. The court denied both motions, finding that the supplemental materials would not change the outcome of its prior summary judgment order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Summary Judgment Record (ECF No. 180)“Accordingly, the motions are denied.” | agree with court The court applied the standard that supplemental materials are only considered if they would change the outcome of the underlying order. Since the court had already ruled on the merits and determined the new evidence was immaterial to that ruling, the denial is procedurally correct. |
Denial of Defendant's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Summary Judgment Record (ECF No. 189)“Accordingly, the motions are denied.” | agree with court The court applied the standard that supplemental materials are only considered if they would change the outcome of the underlying order. Since the court had already ruled on the merits and determined the new evidence was immaterial to that ruling, the denial is procedurally correct. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard for supplementing a summary judgment record (that the new evidence must be material to the outcome) and applies it to the facts (the court had already reviewed the exhibits and determined they were immaterial). The reliance on a recent district court case from the same district is appropriate for this procedural matter.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 INDECT USA CORP., a Texas ) Case No.: 3:18-cv-02409-BEN-DEB corporation, ) 12 ) Plaintiff, 13 ) ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO v. ) SUPPLEMENT THE SUMMARY 14 ) JUDGMENT RECORD PARK ASSIST, LLC, a Delaware limited 15 ) liability company, ) [ECF Nos. 180, 189] 16 Defendant. ) 17 ) PARK ASSIST, LLC, a Delaware limited ) 18 liability company, ) 19 Counterclaimant, ) 20 v. ) ) 21 INDECT USA CORP., a Texas ) corporation, ) 22 Counterdefendant. ) 23 )
24 This matter comes before the Court on two Motions for Leave to Supplement the 25 Summary Judgment Record. ECF Nos. 180, 189. The Court ruled on the parties’ 26 motions for summary judgement on July 28, 2021. ECF No. 195. Before ruling, the 27 Court reviewed the motions to supplement and their supporting exhibits but found they 28 | |} would not change the outcome of the Court’s order on the parties’ motions for summary 2 ||judgment. Accordingly, the motions are denied. See Stone Brewing Co. v. MillerCoors 3 || LLC, 445 F. Supp. 3d 1113, 1148 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (denying motion to supplement 4 ||summary judgment record when the supplemental materials would not change the 5 || outcome of the Court’s underlying order). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: September 22, 2021 8 ON. ROGER BEN ITE United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28