Bruner et al v. Phoenix, City of

Filing 79

ORDER denying Defendant's 78 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 5/7/2019. (LFIG)

1

WO

2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
Maria Bruner, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-00664-PHX-DJH

City of Phoenix,

13

Defendant.

14
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Plaintiffs’

15
16

Motion to Strike. (Doc. 78).1

17

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

18

circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995);

19

Drake v. City of Eloy, 2016 WL 67519, *1 (D. Ariz. 2016). “Reconsideration is appropriate

20

if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear

21

error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change

22

in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

23

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court

24

“to rethink what the court had already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Defenders of

25

Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc.,

26

99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an

27

insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572,

28

1

Pursuant to Local Rule of Practice of the U.S. District of Arizona (“Local Rule”) 7.2(g),
Plaintiffs are not permitted to file a Response without leave of the Court.

1

1573 (D. Haw. 1988).

2

Defendant is asking the Court to reconsider its Order (Doc. 77) striking Defendant’s

3

Motion for Sanctions for failing to comply with the Court’s discovery dispute protocol.

4

(Doc. 78). Defendant argues that Court should reconsider its Order because its Motion for

5

Sanctions is not “a mere discovery dispute” and that “it is seeking relief because Plaintiffs

6

have intentionally destroyed and failed to properly preserve relevant, discoverable social

7

media evidence.” (Id. at 2). The Court struck Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions because

8

the gravamen of the Motion was the production—or lack thereof—of discoverable

9

evidence, including Plaintiffs’ “duty of production under the MIDP or Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and

10

34.” (Doc. 69 at 6). Therefore, the Court found that the parties needed to comply with the

11

Court’s discovery dispute protocol before filing a Motion for Sanctions. Moreover, the

12

Court’s Order did not foreclose on Defendant’s ability to file a Motion for Sanctions after

13

complying with the Court’s discovery dispute protocol. Accordingly, the Court does not

14

find that Defendant provided a sufficient basis for the Court to reconsider its Order. Thus,

15

the Court will deny the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration and instruct the parties to

16

comply with the Court’s discovery dispute procedure. Accordingly,

17
18
19

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration Regarding
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 78) is DENIED.
Dated this 7th day of May, 2019.

20
21
22
23

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

-2-