Robledo #250767 v. Taylor et al
Filing
134
ORDER denying 133 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 8/19/16.(KGM)
WO
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Paul Anthony Robledo,
10
Plaintiff,
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-14-01864-PHX-JAT (DMF)
Nicole Taylor, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Paul A. Robledo’s Motion for
16
Reconsideration of this Court’s August 12, 2016, Order denying his appeal from an order
17
issued by Magistrate Judge Fine. (Doc. 133).
18
Reconsideration of a previous order is an “extraordinary remedy” that is “to be
19
used sparingly.” Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)
20
(citation omitted). The only ground available to support Plaintiff’s motion is the
21
argument that the Court “committed clear error” in denying his appeal from the
22
Magistrate Judge’s order. Id. (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners, 179 F.3d 656, 665
23
(9th Cir. 1999)).
24
Having considered Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that it did not commit clear
25
error in denying his appeal, and thus reconsideration is not warranted. The Court relies on
26
the reasoning set forth in support of the Order Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of.
27
(Doc. 131). Plaintiff’s motion, while it expands upon the rationale behind Plaintiff’s
28
1
appeal from the Magistrate Judge’s order,1 fails to address how the Court committed clear
2
error in denying Plaintiff’s appeal.
3
The medical records Plaintiff proffered with a time stamp of August 13, 2015, fail
4
to establish on what date Defense Counsel obtained copies of Plaintiff’s medical records.
5
Plaintiff has failed to cite to any authority to suggest that Defense Counsel is the
6
appropriate target of Plaintiff’s efforts. And this Court is not an investigatory body and an
7
investigation is not an appropriate remedy in this appeal.
8
To the extent that Plaintiff’s appeal seeks an order to produce certain evidence
9
relating to when Defense Counsel came into possession of Plaintiff’s medical records, the
10
Court finds that it is not relevant to the issues to be tried in this case. Finally, even
11
accepting Plaintiff’s claims as true, these proceedings are not “tainted.” On May 17,
12
2016, Plaintiff authorized the release of his medical records over the past ten years to
13
Defendant. Defendant is now in possession of those records, and was recently ordered by
14
the Magistrate Judge to disclose those records to Plaintiff. Defendant’s motion for
15
summary judgment has been fully briefed, and will be addressed in due course.
16
In sum, Plaintiff has not established that the Court’s denial of his appeal from the
17
Magistrate Judge’s order was clear error. Magistrate Judge Fine will adjudicate Plaintiff’s
18
pending Motion to Produce Documents. (Doc. 132). This motion is outside the scope of
19
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. 133), and will not be addressed by the
20
Court.
21
For these reasons,
22
/
23
/
24
/
25
/
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff also entered into the record a copy of Defendant Nicole Taylor’s
Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (First Set), which Plaintiff
relied on in support of his appeal from the Magistrate Judge’s order.
-2-
1
2
3
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. 133), of the
Court’s August 12, 2016, Order is DENIED.
Dated this 19th day of August, 2016.
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
-3-
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?