Lebbon et al v. Reed et al
Filing
42
ORDER denying 41 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 41 Motion for Protective Order. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 2/20/13. (LAD)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
11
Cameron Lebbon, a married man; Peoria
Police Officer’s Association Charities, a
non-profit charitable organization; Peoria
Police Officer’s Association, a non-profit
corporation,
No. CV-12-00921-PHX-GMS
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
12
13
v.
14
City of Peoria, a municipality,
15
Defendant.
16
17
Pending before the Court is Defendant City of Peoria’s Motion for
18
Reconsideration or in the Alternative Motion for Protective Order. (Doc. 41.) For the
19
reasons discussed below, Defendant’s Motion is denied.
20
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(g), a motion for reconsideration will be denied “absent
21
a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not
22
have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonably diligence.” LRCiv.
23
7.2(g). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to
24
make new arguments not raised in their original briefs and arguments. See Northwest
25
Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925–26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor
26
should such motions ask the Court to “rethink what the court has already thought
27
through—rightly or wrongly.” See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116
28
(D. Ariz. 1998) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D.
1
99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).
2
On January 31, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and ordered
3
Defendant to produce the 2010 Investigation, holding that Defendant had failed to show
4
that the Investigation was protected by either attorney-client or work-product privilege,
5
and that in any event any privilege was waived by Defendant’s disclosure of the results of
6
the Investigation in a 2011 Memo to Plaintiff Lebbon. (Doc. 39 at 3.)
7
Defendant now contends that the 2010 Investigation is protected by the work
8
product privilege and that the burden is on Plaintiffs to overcome that privilege. As an
9
initial matter, the issue of work product privilege was briefed in the previous Motion to
10
Compel. Defendant does not set forth new facts or legal authority that could not have
11
been brought to the Court’s attention earlier. Nor does Defendant argue that manifest
12
error occurred. As such, Defendant has no ground for bringing a Motion for
13
Reconsideration.
14
Moreover, Defendant’s assertion that the burden of overcoming work product
15
privilege falls initially on Plaintiffs is simply wrong. Defendant claims that “when the
16
information being sought is from a consulting expert who is not expected to be called as a
17
trial witness, the burden shifts to the party seeking disclosure of the privileged
18
document.” (Doc. 41 at 3.) Defendant is correct that the burden shifts, but it does not do
19
so until the party invoking the work product privilege has established that the privilege
20
applies. Garcia v. City of El Centro, 214 F.R.D. 587, 591 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (“The party
21
asserting the work product privilege bears the burden of proving that the material
22
withheld meets the standards established for material to be classified as work product.”).
23
Defendant seems to assume that it has established for the Court that the 2010
24
Investigation was the work product of a non-consulting expert. Further, Defendant does
25
nothing to establish how, even if it was, it would not have been waived by its subsequent
26
conduct. Even were the consultant’s status as a non-testifying expert not at issue,
27
Defendant seems to believe that all it needs to do is baldly assert the work product
28
privilege to shift the burden to the other party. The sole case cited by Defendant for this
-2-
1
proposition states the opposite. In Pinal Creek Group v. Newmont Mining Corporation,
2
this Court squarely held that “[t]he party claiming work product immunity has the burden
3
of proving the applicability of the doctrine.” No. CV-91-1764-PHX-DAE, 2006 WL
4
1817000 at *4 (D. Ariz. June 30, 2006).
5
Defendant then argues that, notwithstanding the Court’s Order on January 31
6
ordering Defendant to disclose the entire 2010 Investigation, the Court should conduct an
7
in camera inspection of the Investigation to determine which portions of the Investigation
8
were waived. (Doc. 41 at 4.) Again, Defendant does not cite to any new facts or law, or
9
point to any manifest injustice, that would warrant this deviation from the Court’s earlier
10
Order. As such, there is no ground for Defendant to bring this Motion for
11
Reconsideration. Moreover, as discussed above and in the earlier Order, Defendant has
12
thus far failed to demonstrate that any privilege whatsoever applies to the 2010
13
Investigation. The Court sees no reason to exercise its discretion to inspect the
14
Investigation in camera when Defendant has made no effort to show that the
15
Investigation is potentially privileged.
16
Finally, Defendant requests that the Court issue a protective order limiting the
17
dissemination of the 2010 Investigation and its contents to the parties to this suit. (Id. at
18
5.) Defendant asserts that it is entitled to a protective order because the Investigation
19
contains statements from witnesses who may be subject to retaliation if their identities
20
were released. (Id. at 6.) In addition, Defendant argues that it will suffer “embarrassment,
21
annoyance and oppression” from the media if the 2010 Investigation is released to the
22
public. (Id.) This is a new argument not raised in the briefing on the Motion to Compel.
23
As such, this Motion for Reconsideration is not the proper vehicle for requesting the
24
protective order. Northwest Acceptance, 841 F.2d at 925–26. Defendant’s Motion on this
25
ground is denied. Defendant is not barred from filing a Motion for Protective Order to
26
which Plaintiffs may respond without seeking permission from this Court. See LRCiv.
27
7.2(g)(2).
28
///
-3-
1
2
3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant City of Peoria’s Motion for
Reconsideration or in the alternative Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 41) is DENIED.
Dated this 20th day of February, 2013.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?