United States of America v. Wanland

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/23/2015. Defendant's 42 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. No further Motions for Reconsideration with respect to Court's 9/4/2015 41 Order will be entertained. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-2343-KJM-KJN PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

DONALD M. WANLAND, JR.,
Defendant.

16
17

On September 21, 2015, defendant filed objections to the court’s September 4, 2015 order

18

denying defendant’s motion to modify the pretrial scheduling order. (ECF No. 42.) Although the

19

order did not specifically provide for the filing of objections, the court liberally construes

20

defendant’s objections as a motion for reconsideration.

21

Upon requesting reconsideration of a prior order, a party must show, inter alia, “what new

22

or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown

23

upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j).

24

Here, defendant’s motion does not set forth any new facts or newly-discovered evidence, or an

25

intervening change of law. The court has reviewed the arguments in support of defendant’s

26

contention that the court committed clear error in denying modification of the scheduling order,

27

but finds that those arguments lack merit and/or do not affect the court’s analysis and resolution

28

of defendant’s motion. Therefore, there is no basis for the court to reconsider its prior order.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 42) is DENIED.

3

2. No further motions for reconsideration with respect to the court’s September 4, 2015

4
5
6

order will be entertained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 23, 2015

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2