UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Case No. 18-cv-01199-VC
LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR
UNIVERSITY,
ORDER RE MOTION FOR
Plaintiff, RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION
FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD
v. FAITH SETTLEMENT
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 149, 235, 249 Defendants.
I. The motion for reconsideration of the Court’s July 17, 2020 order, Dkt. No. 149, is granted in part and denied in part. “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School District No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). It was clear error to grant summary judgment as to Agilent’s affirmative defenses when Stanford only moved for summary judgment as to HP’s affirmative defenses. Agilent has only moved to reinstate its seventeenth (waiver and estoppel), eighteenth (assumption of risk) and thirty-fourth (release or waiver) affirmative defenses. Those defenses are reinstated as to Agilent. It bears…