Arnold v. County of El Dorado

Filing 54

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/5/2012 ORDERING 50 that Plaintiff's "motion to object," is DENIED; and Plaintiff's 51 motion to strike, is DENIED. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

PENNY ARNOLD,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

No. 2:10-cv-3119 KJM GGH PS

vs.
COUNTY OF EL DORADO, et al.,
ORDER

13
Defendants.
14

/

15

On May 31, 2012, plaintiff filed a “motion to object,” and a motion to strike. The

16

motion to object is construed as a motion for reconsideration of this court’s order of May 17,

17

2012, setting an evidentiary hearing, and ordering plaintiff to submit to further deposition.1

18

Parties seeking reconsideration should demonstrate “new or different facts or

19

circumstances [which] are claimed to exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what

20

other grounds exist for the motion.” E.D. Cal. L. R. 230 (j); see United States v. Alexander, 106

21

F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1997) (citing Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

22

508 U.S. 951, 113 S.Ct. 2443, 124 L.Ed.2d 661 (1993)) (reconsideration appropriate for a change

23

in the controlling law, facts, or other circumstances, a need to correct a clear error, or a need to

24

prevent manifest injustice). “After thoughts” or “shifting of ground” are not appropriate bases

25
1

26

The order for further deposition was held in abeyance pending the outcome of the
evidentiary hearing.
1

1

for reconsideration. Fay Corp. v. BAT Holdings I, Inc., 651 F.Supp. 307, 309 (W.D.

2

Wash.1987), aff’d, 896 F.2d 1227 (9th Cir.1990). The standards “reflect[ ] district courts’

3

concern for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial efficiency.” Costello v.

4

United States Government, 765 F.Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991).

5

Plaintiff has failed to proffer any facts or argument which would demonstrate an

6

appropriate basis for reconsideration. She claims that she wants her “day in Court” to present her

7

claims, objects to the evidentiary hearing, objects to the admissibility of the disc containing

8

videos allegedly taken by plaintiff with her cell phone in the courthouse, and objects to having

9

her deposition taken again. The May 17th order permitted plaintiff, as well as defendants, to

10

present testimony and evidence at the evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff therefore has the opportunity

11

to have her day in court. The evidentiary hearing is warranted for reasons stated in the order.

12

Plaintiff is advised that this court has not and will not rule on the admissibility of the videos.

13

Such a decision will be made before trial by the district judge. In regard to the court ordered

14

retaking of plaintiff’s deposition, the transcript of plaintiff’s first deposition fully supports the

15

need for another deposition, for reasons explained in the May 17th order.

16

Plaintiff’s motion to strike is not appropriately before the court at this time. This

17

motion seeks to strike the disc of videorecordings, the sanction of dismissal of her case, the

18

scheduled evidentiary hearing, and her deposition transcript. As mentioned above, this court is

19

not ruling on the admissibility of the videorecordings. That issue must be decided by the district

20

court at trial. Similarly, the motion to strike plaintiff’s deposition transcript, whether in whole or

21

in part, must await trial. For reasons stated in this court’s May 17, 2012 order, the evidentiary

22

hearing and potential sanction of dismissal are appropriately before this court. Plaintiff has

23

provided no valid reason why the evidentiary hearing should be vacated. To the extent that she

24

argues that she did not take any videos or was not aware that she had taken videos, such

25

argument must be presented at the evidentiary hearing by testimony or other evidence.

26

\\\\\
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s “motion to object,” filed May 31, 2012, (dkt. no. 50), is denied.

3

2. Plaintiff’s motion to strike, filed May 31, 2012, (dkt. no 51), is denied.

4

DATED: June 5, 2012

5

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
GGH:076/Arnold3119.rec.wpd

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3