Order | Filed: August 20, 2026
| Entered: August 20, 2026
UWorld LLC v. USMLE Galaxy LLC
Property Rights: Copyright | Texas Northern
Order on Motion for Reconsideration
ELECTRONIC ORDER:
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Order [Dkt. 648] Rejecting in part Magistrate Judge Horan's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations [Dkt. 541] on Defendant's Direct and Vicarious Copyright Infringement Liability (Doc. No. 660).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) "allows parties to seek reconsideration of interlocutory orders and authorizes the district court to 'revise[ ] at any time' 'any order or other decision... [that] does not end the action.'" Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 336 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). "Under Rule 54(b), 'the trial court is free to reconsider and reverse its decision for any reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of the substantive law.'" Id. (quoting Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 185 (5th Cir. 1990), and citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)), abrogated on other grounds by Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 n.14 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc); see also Dallas Cnty., Tex. v. MERSCORP, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 938, 950 (N.D. Tex. 2014) (O'Connor, J.) ("Although the precise standard for evaluating a motion to reconsider under Rule 54(b) is unclear, whether to grant such a motion rests within the discretion of the court," which should "determine whether reconsideration is necessary under the circumstances.") (citations and internal quotations omitted)).
The Court has carefully considered the Motion to Reconsider, Defendants' Response (Doc. No. 662), Plaintiff's Reply (Doc. No. 664), the applicable law, and any relevant portions of the record. In its discretion, the Court concludes there is no sufficient reason to reconsider and reverse any part of its decision rejecting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation as to Defendant's liability for direct and vicarious copyright infringement (Doc. No. 648). See Austin, 864 F.3d at 336; MERSCORP, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 950.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider.
(Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 8/20/2026) (chmb)