United States of America v. $50,800.00 in US Currency

Filing 38

ORDER that the Joint 37 Motion to Reconsider Order of 06/16/11, doc. 37 is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 07/08/11.(ESL)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
$50,800.00 in U. S. Currency,
)
)
Defendant.
__________________________________)
)
)
Rodney Burnett-Johnson,
)
)
Claimant.
)
United States of America,

No. CV-10-2004-PHX-LOA
ORDER

This case arises on the parties’ Joint Motion to Reconsider Order of June

18

16, 2011, filed on June 17, 2011. (Doc. 37) Counsel now clarify that neither counsel nor

19

their Notice of Extension of Discovery Deadline, doc. 35, intended to request a “modifi-

20

cation of any time line or deadline imposed by the Court in the Scheduling Order.” (Id. at

21

2) According to counsel, the Notice was simply “a courtesy to the Court . . . to

22

demonstrate that the parties are diligently pursuing the discovery obligations as set out by

23

the Court in the Scheduling Order of March 29, 2011.” (Id.)

24

I. Motions for Reconsideration

25

A motion to reconsider must provide a valid ground for reconsideration by

26

showing two elements. All Hawaii Tours Corp. v. Polunesian Cultural Ctr., 116 F.R.D.

27

645, 648-49 (D. Haw. 1987), rev’d on other grounds, 855 F.2d 860 (1988). First, it must

28

demonstrate some valid reason why the Court should reconsider its prior decision. Id.

1

Second, it must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the Court

2

to reverse its prior decision. Id. Courts have distilled three (3) major grounds justifying

3

reconsideration. They are: 1) an intervening change in the controlling law, 2) the

4

availability of new evidence, and 3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest

5

injustice. Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal.

6

1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987);

7

Hegler v. Borg, 50 F.3d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1029 (1995);

8

Kennedy v. Lubar, 273 F.3d 1293, 1299, fn. 6 (10th Cir. 2001); See generally C. Wright,

9

A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 4478 at 790. A motion for

10

reconsideration is not an opportunity to present facts that were known to the party on the

11

earlier motion, nor new legal theories in place of the ones used earlier that did not prevail.

12

L.I. Head Start Child Development Services, Inc. v. Kearse, 96 F.Supp.2d 209, 211 - 212

13

(E.D.N.Y. 2000). “Nor may the party merely reiterate or repackage an argument

14

previously rejected by the court; that argument is for appeal.” PAB Aviation, Inc. v.

15

United States, 2000 WL 1240196 at *1 (E.D.N.Y. 2000).

16

The District of Arizona’s Local Rule (“LRCiv”) 7.2(g)(1) provides that

17

“[t]he Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a

18

showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have

19

been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. . . .” LRCiv 7.2(g), as

20

amended on December 1, 2010.

21

II. Discussion

22

Counsel now clarify that when their May 9, 2011 Notice, doc. 35,

23

indicated “that Claimant may have an extension of the discovery deadline until July 15,

24

2011[,]” that they were referring to the date Claimant’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery

25

were due, not an effort to amend the Rule 16 discovery deadlines in the March 29, 2011

26

scheduling order. Why counsel would file a two-page notice rather than a simple

27

stipulation and separate order confirming counsels’ discovery agreement regarding

28

responses, the customary and better practice followed by most civil litigators, is unclear.
-2-

1

The Court agrees with counsel that “[t]he Judges of the Arizona District Court have

2

always encouraged counsel to resolve such discovery issues without seeking input from

3

the trial judge.” (Doc. 37 at 2) Busy federal judges have neither the interest nor time to

4

micro-manage when responses to routine discovery are due to adverse counsel in civil

5

cases and only when a motion to compel is filed does the Court assert itself in the issue.

6

The Court will not amend its prior order because counsel were less than clear in what they

7

were attempting to communicate to the Court and it does not contain manifest error. If

8

anything, counsel received a preview of how firm the Court views the Scheduling Order’s

9

deadlines in this case. The Court’s June 16, 2011 Order does not preclude counsel from

10

filing a stipulation and separate order confirming counsels’ discovery agreement

11

regarding responses.

12

Under the standard set forth above, the Court sees no compelling reason to

13

reconsider its decision. Thus, the Joint Motion to Reconsider Order of June

14

16, 2011, doc. 37, is DENIED.

15

DATED this 8th day of July, 2011.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-