Opinion
1:06CV00229.
April 27, 2006
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion [Document #43] by Defendants Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and Syngenta Participations AG ("Defendants") for Reconsideration of the Court's April 20, 2006 Order striking as untimely Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Exhibits. Plaintiff BASF Corporation ("Plaintiff") objects to the Motion for Reconsideration.
Plaintiff filed its original Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on March 15, 2006, and this Court scheduled the matter for an expedited hearing on March 23, 2006. On March 21, 2006, Defendants requested a continuance of the hearing and expedited discovery. In that request, Defendants also addressed the merits of Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion. The Court allowed Defendants' request for a continuance and rescheduled the hearing for April 20, 2006. However, the Court did not impose a briefing schedule, and under Local Rule 7.3, any response by Defendants would have been due by April 7, 2006. Defendants did not file any additional response brief within that time. On April 11, 2006, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants reminding them of the April 7, 2006 deadline and inquiring whether they intended to file a Response Brief. However, Defendants still did not file a Response or request an extension or authorization from the Court. On the afternoon of April 19, 2006, the day before the hearing, Defendants attempted to file a Response Brief, proposed Findings of Fact, and extensive exhibits and affidavits. Defendants still did not seek authorization from the Court or an extension of time to allow this filing. Plaintiff objected to the Response Brief and proposed Findings of Fact as untimely. The Court considered this matter at the preliminary injunction hearing on April 20, 2006, and concluded that the proposed filing on April 19, 2006 was untimely, was without authorization from the Court, and was prejudicial to Plaintiff given the timing of the filing on the eve of the hearing. Therefore, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Strike [Document #36]. However, the Court also specifically noted that although the brief itself was untimely, the matter was on for a hearing, and the parties were free to submit any arguments and evidence as part of the hearing. In addition, given the expedited discovery schedule, the Court allowed the parties through April 28, 2006 to submit any evidence for the Court's consideration, including exhibits, affidavits or designations of deposition testimony.
Defendants now seek reconsideration of the Court's ruling granting Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. In support of their Motion, Defendants contend that the Court's decision on Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction should include "a complete consideration of all the facts, issues and legal arguments." Defendants also note that some of the evidence was not available on April 7, 2006, given the ongoing discovery. However, in response, Plaintiff notes that all of Defendants' legal arguments (and most of the exhibits and evidentiary support) were available on April 7, and Defendants failed to request an extension or request authorization from the Court to allow any response brief after that date. In addition, Plaintiff notes that Defendants were allowed to present lengthy oral arguments, and will be allowed to subsequently present their evidence for the Court's consideration, including designated deposition testimony and documents and affidavits that were part of the Memorandum of Law that the Court did indeed strike.
The Court has considered Defendants' Motion and concludes that there is no basis to reconsider its prior ruling. Specifically, the Court notes that Defendants were given the opportunity to present lengthy oral arguments at the preliminary injunction hearing. In addition, based on the timing of the discovery prior to the hearing, as previously noted, the Court has allowed the parties until April 28, 2006 to submit their evidentiary support, including documents, affidavits and deposition testimony. As such, any decision by the Court on the preliminary injunction will include a "complete consideration of all the facts, issues and legal arguments." Indeed, that was the purpose of holding the April 20, 2006 preliminary injunction hearing notwithstanding the fact that the Court, in its discretion, granted Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration [Document #43] is DENIED.