MGA Entertainment, Inc. v. Dynacraft BSC, Inc., 2:17-cv-08222

Plaintiffs MGA Entertainment, Inc. and The Little Tikes Company moved to strike Dynacraft’s expert report as untimely; the Court granted MGA’s motion on April 30, 2019 and struck Dynacraft’s report.
Dynacraft filed a motion for reconsideration under C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-18 seeking reversal of the order striking its expert report.
Dynacraft argued the report was a rebuttal report under a July 25, 2018 stipulation (so due March 18, 2019) rather than an opening report (due January 18, 2019).
Dynacraft also argued it reasonably relied on the parties’ Rule 26(f) agreement and the stipulation, implying substantial justification for any timing error.
The Court treated Dynacraft’s points as either previously raised and rejected or as new arguments inappropriate for reconsideration, and denied the motion.
The Court also denied as moot MGA’s ex parte application to stay pending resolution of the motion to strike.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dynacraft’s expert report was rebuttal (thus timely) under the parties’ stipulation	MGA: report does not qualify as rebuttal and was served after the opening-report deadline	Dynacraft: stipulation phrase means its report was rebuttal and fell under later deadline	Court: report does not rebut any MGA expert, so it is not rebuttal; report untimely and properly stricken
Whether Dynacraft’s claimed substantial justification/justified reliance excuses late service	MGA: Dynacraft failed to raise this argument previously; cannot raise anew on reconsideration	Dynacraft: relied on stipulation and Rule 26(f) agreement, so its delay was justified	Court: argument was not raised earlier and is a new basis for relief; motion for reconsideration cannot present new arguments; argument precluded
Whether to stay proceedings pending resolution of the motion to strike	MGA sought a stay	Dynacraft opposed	Court: stay denied as moot after denying reconsideration

Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003) (motions for reconsideration require newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in law)
Rosenfeld v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 57 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court may disregard arguments raised for first time on reconsideration)
In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Mortg.-Backed Sec. Litig., 966 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (discussing Local Rule 7-18 reconsideration standards)
Daghlian v. DeVry Univ., Inc., 582 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (whether to grant reconsideration is within court’s discretion)