Hardin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 253

ORDER on Request for Clarification and Deny Reconsideration [Docs. 233, 239, 240, 243], signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/23/2012. (Herman, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 ZANE HARDIN, 13 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-0617 AWI-BAM Plaintiffs, ORDER ON REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND DENY RECONSIDERATION 14 15 vs. (Docs. 233, 239, 240, 243) 16 WAL-MART STORES, INC, 17 18 Defendant. / 19 20 The Court has reviewed the following filing’s by Plaintiff: Declaration of John A. Shepardson, 21 Esq. in Support of the Motion to Compel Emails and Other Documents and Notice of Motion (Doc. 22 243); Declaration of John A. Shepardson, Esq. re: Judge Ishii’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For 23 Reconsideration; Magistrate McAuliffe’s Discovery Order (not addressing Defendant Wal-Mart 24 Destroying Documents in Violation of Judge Jenkin’s Order) (collectively “Plaintiff’s Statement”). 25 (Doc. 247). 26 Plaintiff’s Statement asks the Court to confirm or deny whether it mistakenly overlooked 27 Plaintiff’s claim that Wal-Mart destroyed emails and documents in violation of a Court Order in its 28 prior order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel emails and other documents. (Doc. 247). Plaintiff is 1 1 advised that the Court carefully reviewed and considered all of the joint motions, briefs, points and 2 authorities, declarations, and/or exhibits in preparation of its order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to 3 Compel or otherwise reopen discovery. Any omission of a reference to any specific argument or 4 declaration is not to be construed that the Court failed to consider the argument or declaration. The 5 Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and its axiomatic that any related sanctions claim must 6 suffer the same fate. 7 8 To the extent that Plaintiff’s Statement is to be construed as a motion for reconsideration, this Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration. 9 “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s 10 decision, and recapitulation of the arguments considered by the court before rendering its original 11 decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist.,134 12 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal citations omitted). “To succeed, a party must set forth 13 facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Westlands 14 Water, 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131. 15 Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court: (1) is presented with newly discovered 16 evidence; (2) has committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) is presented 17 with an intervening change in controlling law. School District 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 18 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994). 19 Plaintiff’s Statement simply represents Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s decision to 20 deny additional discovery and sanctions. Plaintiff’s disagreement alone is insufficient to establish that 21 the Court overlooked relevant facts or controlling law in denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. See 22 Schiano v. MBNA Corp, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93578, * 2 (D.N.J. Dec. 27, 2006) (“Mere 23 disagreement with the Court will not suffice to show that the Court overlooked relevant facts or 24 controlling law, ..., and should be dealt with through the normal appellate process[.]”) (citations 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 omitted). Furthermore, in this District a motion for reconsideration is “an extremely limited procedural 2 vehicle” and such requests should be granted sparingly; the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to meet the 3 standard for reconsideration, and the request for reconsideration must be denied. See Westlands Water, 4 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10c20k July 23, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?