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-