1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 QUINCE & CO LLC, Case No. 23-cv-06016-AMO

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE

9 v. MOTION RE: SUPPLEMENTAL

EVIDENCE

10 LAST BRAND, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 48 Defendant. 11

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Quince & Co LLC’s administrative motion for leave to file 14 supplemental evidence in support of its motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff seeks to 15 submit additional evidence related to Defendant’s food and beverage partnerships that its counsel 16 did not discover until after the close of briefing on the motion for preliminary injunction. 17 “Evidence is not ‘newly discovered’ if it . . . could have been discovered with reasonable 18 diligence.” Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 212 (9th Cir. 19 1987); see also Best Label Co. v. Custom Label & Decal, LLC, 2022 WL 1189884, at *7 n.14 20 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2022) (“All of the evidence plaintiff seeks to submit in the supplemental 21 record was available to plaintiff when it submitted its [brief]. The supplemental evidence is 22 untimely and will not be considered.” (Illston, J.)). Here, the supplemental evidence identified by 23 Plaintiff was publicly available when it submitted its motion for a preliminary injunction and reply 24 in support thereof. Thus, this additional evidence is untimely. Moreover, Plaintiff does not 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 provide sufficient explanation or establish good cause for why these materials were overlooked in 2 the first instance. Therefore, the Court DENIES the administrative motion. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: April 2, 2024 - 5 cok

ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN

6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28