IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
RAYTHEON COMPANY, a Delaware § corporation, § §
Plaintiff, § §
v. § Case No. 4:07-CV-109 § INDIGO SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a § California corporation, and FLIR SYSTEMS, § INCORPORATED, an Oregon corporation, § §
Defendants. §
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SEALED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF AUGUST 31, 2009 SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER
Pending before the court is the “Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of August 31, 2009 Summary Judgment Order” (docket entry #466) filed on September 8, 2009 under seal. Having considered the Plaintiff’s arguments, the court finds that the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration should be denied. Based on the holding in Seatrax, Inc. v. Sonbeck Int’l, Inc., 200 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2000), the court concludes that it did not commit any manifest errors of law or fact. As in Seatrax, Raytheon’s arguments lose force when viewed in light of the totality of the summary judgment evidence. Seatrax, 200 F.3d at 367. “‘Suspicions should abound when a competitor markets a product similar to that previously developed by a former employer after one of the former employer’s employees begins work for the competitor.’” Id. at 366, quoting Computer Associates Intern. v. Altai, 918 S.W.2d 453, 457 (Tex. 1996). Accordingly, “Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of August 31, 2009 Summary Judgment Order” (docket entry #466) is hereby DENIED.