Opinion
23-cv-06016-AMO
04-02-2024
QUINCE & CO LLC, Plaintiff, v. LAST BRAND, INC., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION RE: SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE RE: DKT. NO. 48
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN United States District Judge
Before the Court is Plaintiff Quince & Co LLC's administrative motion for leave to file supplemental evidence in support of its motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff seeks to submit additional evidence related to Defendant's food and beverage partnerships that its counsel did not discover until after the close of briefing on the motion for preliminary injunction. “Evidence is not ‘newly discovered' if it . . . could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.” Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 212 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Best Label Co. v. Custom Label & Decal, LLC, 2022 WL 1189884, at *7 n.14 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2022) (“All of the evidence plaintiff seeks to submit in the supplemental record was available to plaintiff when it submitted its [brief]. The supplemental evidence is untimely and will not be considered.” (Illston, J.)). Here, the supplemental evidence identified by Plaintiff was publicly available when it submitted its motion for a preliminary injunction and reply in support thereof. Thus, this additional evidence is untimely. Moreover, Plaintiff does not provide sufficient explanation or establish good cause for why these materials were overlooked in the first instance. Therefore, the Court DENIES the administrative motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.