United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION  AND
DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY 
D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is Defendant Dynacraft's
(“Dynacraft”) Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court's Order striking Dynacraft's Expert Report
(“Motion”). (Mot. for Recons.
(“Mot.”), ECF No. 109.) For reasons that follow,
Dynacraft's Motion is
Court addressed the factual allegations and procedural
history relevant to this case in its Minute Order granting
Plaintiffs MGA Entertainment, Inc.'s and The Little Tikes
Company's (collectively “MGA”) Motion to
Strike Late-Served Expert Report, and incorporates that
discussion here by reference. (See Min. Order, ECF
No. 108.) On April 30, 2019, the Court granted MGA's
Motion to Strike Dynacraft's Late-Served Expert Report
(Min. Order 4-5.), and on May 3, 2019, the Court granted
Dynacraft's Motion to Strike MGA's Late-Served Expert
Report (Min. Order 4, ECF No. 112.) On May 3, 2019, Dynacraft
filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of only the
Court's Order striking Dynacraft's Expert Report,
pursuant to Local Rule 7-18. (Mot.)
motion for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-18 may be
made on the following grounds:
(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 not have been known to the party
moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or
(b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law
occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest
showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to
the Court before such decision.
C.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-18; see In re Countrywide Fin.
Corp. Mortg.-Backed Sec. Litig., 966 F.Supp.2d 1031,
1036 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Consistent with Local Rule 7-18,
“a motion for reconsideration should not be granted,
absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district
court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed
clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the
controlling law.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342
F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). “Whether to grant a
motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-18 is a matter
within the court's discretion.” Daghlian v.
DeVry Univ., Inc., 582 F.Supp.2d 1231, 1251 (C.D. Cal.
2007). “No motion for reconsideration shall in any
manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of
or in opposition to the original motion.” C.D. Cal.
Civ. L.R. 7-18; Rosenfeld v. U.S. Dep't of
Justice, 57 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 1995).
brings this Motion pursuant to Local Rule 7-18(c), asserting
that the Court failed to consider material facts.
(See Mot.) Dynacraft asserts two arguments: first,
the Court failed to account for the Parties' July 25,
2018 Stipulation (“Stipulation”) (ECF No. 58) and
second, the Court failed to account for Dynacraft's
justified reliance on the parties' Rule 26(f) agreement.
(Mot. 5.) The Court finds both arguments unpersuasive and
fail to satisfy the taxing burden of Local Rule 7-18.
Failure to Account for the Parties' July 25, 2018
asserts that this Court failed to account for the
parties' Stipulation, specifically the Court did not
reference the phrase “issue for which party bears the
burden of proof.” (Mot. 2.) Dynacraft contends that its
expert reports are rebuttal reports which fell under the
March 18, 2019 rebuttal deadline, rather than the January 18,
2019 deadline for opening expert reports. Dynacraft contends
this means that their expert report should not have been
stricken as untimely. (Mot. 4-5.)
Court disagrees. To begin, these arguments merely repeat
Dynacraft's original arguments opposing MGA's motion
to strike. (See Def.'s Opp'n 3-4, ECF No.
93.) Further, the Court considered and rejected
Dynacraft's arguments. (See Min. Order 4-5.) The
Court considered the Parties' Stipulation, including the
noted language. The Court concluded that Dynacraft's
expert report did not serve as a rebuttal report,
“[f]inding that the expert witness testimony of Bruce
Isaacson does not rebut any expert from MGA, [and ...