United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Alixa Rx LLC, Golden Gate National Senior Care
LLC d/b/a Golden LivingCenters, Fillmore Capital Partners,
LLC, Fillmore Strategic Investors, LLC, and Fillmore
Strategic Management, LLC's (“Defendants”)
Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate's Order on
Motion for Leave to Supplement P.R. 3-3 Invalidity
Contentions (Dkt. #158). After considering the relevant
pleadings, the Court denies Defendants' motion.
Pharmacy Services, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed suit
against Alixa Rx LLC and Golden Gate National Senior Care LLC
(“Original Defendants”) on November 2, 2015 (Dkt.
#1). Plaintiff amended its complaint on January 22, 2016,
adding state law claims for breach of contract and torts to
the original patent infringement claims (Dkt. #14).
27, 2016, the Original Defendants served their initial P.R.
3-3 Invalidity Contentions in accordance with the scheduling
order deadline (Dkt. #109, Ex. A; Dkt. #52).
August 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed an unopposed Motion for
Leave to Add Parties (Dkt. #78. The Court granted leave, and
on September 1, 2016, Plaintiff amended its complaint (the
“Second Amended Complaint”) to add the Fillmore
Capital Partners LLC, Fillmore Strategic Management LLC, and
Fillmore Strategic Investors LLC (“Fillmore
Defendants”) (Dkt. #83). The amendment added the
Fillmore Defendants to the state law causes of action but did
not make substantive changes to any theory of the case.
claim construction briefing was due September 9, 2016,
followed by responsive briefing on September 23, 2016, and
reply briefing on September 30, 2016 (Dkt. #52). On October
7, 2016, Defendants sent a copy of proposed amended
invalidity contentions to Plaintiff. The Court conducted a
claim construction hearing on October 14, 2016 (Dkt. #108).
Also on October 14, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave
to Supplement their P.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions (Dkt.
#109). The Court issued its claim construction order on
October 28, 2016 (Dkt. #121).
January 19, 2017, the magistrate judge, on referral, issued
an order denying Defendants' Motion for Leave to
Supplement their P.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions (Dkt. #146).
On February 2, 2017, Defendants' filed the present Motion
for Reconsideration of the Magistrate's Order (Dkt.
#158). On February 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response (Dkt.
#166). On February 23, 2017, Defendants filed a reply (Dkt.
#170), and on March 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply
to reconsider serve a very limited purpose: “to permit
a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact, or to
present newly discovered evidence.” Krim v.
pcOrder.com, Inc., 212 F.R.D. 329, 331 (W.D. Tex. 2002)
(citations omitted). Mere disagreement with a district
court's order does not warrant reconsideration of that
order. Id. at 332. A party should not restate,
recycle, or rehash arguments that were previously made.
Id. District court opinions “are not intended
as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration
at a litigant's pleasure.” Quaker Alloy Casting
Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D.
Ill. 1988). Rather, “litigants are expected to present
their strongest case when the matter is first
considered.” Louisiana v. Sprint Comms. Co.,
899 F.Supp. 282, 284 (M.D. La. 1995) (citation omitted).
motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e)
‘must clearly establish either a manifest error of law
or fact or must present newly discovered evidence' and
‘cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and
should, have been made before the judgment
issued.'” Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332
F.3d 854, 863-64 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Simon v. United
States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)). “A
Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to relitigate issues that
were resolved to the movant's dissatisfaction.”
Glass v. United States, No. 3:00-cv-1543, 2004 WL
2189634, at *1 (N.D. Tex. 2004) (citing Forsythe v. Saudi
Arabian Airlines Corp., 885 F.2d 285, 289 (5th Cir.
1989)). “District courts have ‘considerable
discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion to
alter a judgment.'” Id. (citing Hale
v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 921 (5th Cir. 1995)). “In
exercising this discretion, a district court must
‘strike the proper balance between the need for
finality and the need to render just decisions on the basis
of all the facts.'” Id.
seek a reconsideration of the magistrate judge's prior
order denying their motion for leave to supplement their P.R.
3-3 invalidity contentions (Dkt. #158). The Court is not
inclined to reconsider its prior rulings. Under the Local
Rules for the Eastern District of Texas, Appendix B Patent
Rules, leave to amend invalidity contentions “may be
made only by order of the court, which shall be entered only
upon a showing of good cause.” P.R. 3-6(b). “Good
cause, ” according to the Federal Circuit,
“requires a showing of diligence.” O2
MicroInt'l Ltd. v. Monolithic ...