The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lindsay, Magistrate Judge
Before the court is plaintiff's motion pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3 seeking reconsideration of the undersigned's Memorandum and Order dated March 31, 2011 which granted, in part, summary judgment to defendant Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC ("BSA") and which denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on BSA's counterclaim. For the reasons set forth in this order, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
Familiarity with the background and the Court's earlier order is presumed. Plaintiff argues that the order granting summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's claim for misappropriation of trade secrets should be vacated for the following reasons: (1) the court was in error in determining that BSA had unlimited rights in the LVPS Production Unit Control Board Schematic because it was data first produced under the 66116 Contract; (2) the court was in error in determining that the LVPS Prototype Control Board Schematic was not entitled to trade secret protection; (3) the court was in error in determining that the Power Module Schematic was not entitled to trade secret protection; (4) the court was in error in determining that BSA did not improperly disclose MDI's circuit schematics to Dr. Simion that tainted his reverse engineering of the LVPS units; and (5) the court was in error in determining that the PSBNP-1287 version of Attachment B applied to the 66116 Contract and not the PLB-1096 version. In addition, plaintiff argues that the order denying plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment with respect to BSA's counterclaim for breach of contract should be vacated because the court did not address plaintiff's argument that BSA did not incur the costs that form the basis of its alleged damages.
Generally, a district court will not revisit its prior decision unless a party can show that the court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion. Local Civil Rule 6.3. The standard for a motion for reconsideration "is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or [factual] data that the court overlooked -- matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shraderv. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995); see Medoy v. Warnaco Employees Long Term Disability Ins. Plan, No. 97 Civ. 6612 (SJ), 2006 WL 355137 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2006). "The major grounds justifying reconsideration are 'an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.'" Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. National Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478 at 790)). "Reconsideration of a court's previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce resources." Parrish v. Sollecito, 253 F. Supp. 2d 713, 715 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)(internal citations and quotations marks omitted). A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to reiterate or repackage an argument previously rejected by the court; that argument is for appeal." PAB Aviation, Aviation, Inc. v. United States, N0. 98-CV-5952 JG, 2000 WL 1240196 at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2000).
None of the arguments raised by the plaintiff meet the standards for reconsideration. Rather, plaintiff's motion largely restates the arguments set forth in the underlying motion papers that were fully considered and addressed in the March 31, 2011 Memorandum and Order. It is well-established that a motion for reconsideration "should not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided." Schrader, 70 F.3d at 257; see Joseph v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth., 96 Civ. 9015 (DAB), 2006 WL 721862 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2006) (holding a motion for reconsideration "is not one in which a party may reargue those issues already considered when a party does not like the way the original motion was resolved") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Pannonia Farms, Inc. v. USA Cable, No. 03 Civ. 7841, 2004 WL 1794504, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2004) (noting that reconsideration is not an opportunity to take a 'second bit at the apple' for a party dissatisfied with a court's ruling") (internal citation omitted). As discussed below, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that reconsideration is warranted and, therefore, the motion is denied.
(1) MDI's Claim for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
(a) The LVPS Production Unit Control Board Schematic
Plaintiff argues that the court erred in finding that the production unit control board schematic was first produced under the 66116 Contract because the court failed to consider (i) that the data contained in the schematic was developed by MDI, at private expense, before MDI entered the 66116 Contract; (ii) that BSA acknowledged that the schematics contained MDI intellectual property; (iii) that the terms of the non disclosure agreement ("NDA") supersede the Data Rights Clauses in Attachment B; (iv) whether the production unit schematic was specified to be delivered; (v) that the second NDA was specifically entered between BSA and MDI in exchange for MDI's agreement to share trade secret information in the production control board schematic; and (vi) that the integration and merger clause of the second NDA controls the rights in the schematic. Plaintiff's arguments are unpersuasive.
First, contrary to plaintiff's position, the court specifically considered and rejected MDI's argument that "this schematic cannot be considered data 'first produced' in the performance of the 66116 Contract because it contains trade secrets and confidential information developed by MDI, solely at MDI's own expense, prior to MDI's work with BSA on the ATLAS program and pursuant to the Representations and Certifications to the 66116 Contract which provides, '[a]ll data previously developed at contractor's expense" qualified as limited rights data. (Striegl Dec., dated May 21, 2010, ¶ 2; Esatto II Decl., dated May 21, 2010, Ex. 82 at ¶ 17)." See Memorandum and Order, dated March 31, 2011, at 30-31. Consistent with legal principles, the court in fashioning its Order had reviewed the language of the contracts and the NDAs as a whole, giving the terms their plain meaning, and had concluded that the language of the agreements between the parties was unambiguous. The court then (i) applied the express terms and provisions of the contracts and NDAs as written to the record evidence, (ii) determined that in order for the schematic to be given limited rights protection under the agreements MDI was required to identify the data being withheld and furnish form, fit and function data in lieu thereof, and (iii) concluded that in the absence of such an identification by MDI, the government had unlimited rights in the production unit schematic as it was first produced on May 25, 2004 in the performance of the 66116 Contract. Id. at 30-33. Plaintiff's assertion that the court failed to consider BSA's acknowledgment that the schematics contained MDI intellectual property as evidenced by Exhibit 42 to the Esatto Declaration is not only without merit. but in any event, does not change the result. Exhibit 42 is a letter written by Joanna Black of BSA to MDI dated October 12, 2006 which requests intellectual property to conduct an independent failure analysis of the faulty power supplies pursuant to Contract 91308 in order to make a timely delivery of reliable and quality power supplies by August 2007. Nowhere in the letter is there a reference to the production unit schematic produced on May 25, 2004. (Esatto Decl., dated April 23, 2010, Ex. 42.)
Moreover, the court specifically considered plaintiff's argument that "the terms of the NDA supersede the Data Rights Clauses of the 66116 Contract and therefore BSA did not obtain unlimited rights in the production unit control board schematic." See Memorandum and Order, dated March 31, 2011, at 31-33. In rejecting that argument, the court determined that on April 7, 2004, the parties entered into a 4th Revision to Purchase Order 66116
(i) wherein BSA was to make milestone payments against portions of the work, (ii) which added a Government property clause that clearly stated "[a]ll material and work covered by the progress payments shall become the sole property of the government of the United States," and (iii) which made clear that all prior terms and conditions of the 66116 Purchase Order remained unchanged, including the incorporation of Attachments A and B. Having signed and accepted the revision to Contract 66116, MDI agreed to be bound by the clear language of the contract and the terms and conditions of the incorporated attachments, including the express provision on the face of the contract stating that "in the event of a conflict or inconsistencies between Brookhaven's and [MDI]'s terms and conditions, Brookhaven's terms and conditions shall take precedence." Here, MDI delivered the logic schematic for the power supply pursuant to the 66116 Purchase Order under which BSA contracted for the production of radiation tolerant power supplies.
Id. at 32-33. Thus, contrary to plaintiff's assertions, the court fully examined the contracts and the NDAs and concluded that "the terms of the NDA did not supersede the Data Rights Clauses of the 66116 Contract." Id. Likewise, the court specifically considered and rejected plaintiff's argument that the schematic was not specified to be delivered in the purchase order based on the unambiguous language of the 66116 Contract which gave the government unlimited rights in all data first produced in performance of the contract. Id. at 33 n.15. Finally, plaintiff's arguments with respect to the second NDA can quickly be disposed of. The production unit schematic was furnished prior to the second NDA, which was entered into between the parties on November 15, 2005, and contrary to plaintiff's assertion, was entered into "as a result of a request by Brookhaven for the actual inductor/capacitor configuration at the output of a power module." Id. at 8.
In short, because plaintiff's challenge to the determination that MDI did not possess a trade secret that was misappropriated by BSA in the LVPS production unit control board schematic was fully argued in connection with the underlying motion and addressed in the March 31, 2011 ...