Haseltine v. Astrue

Filing 44

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman Denying re 43 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009)

1 2 3 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 v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Defendant. JO ANNE E. HASELTINE, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. C 08-5782 BZ ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before me is defendant's motion for reconsideration of the order denying plaintiff's motion to compel dated October 29, 2009. Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) requires that the moving

party on a motion for reconsideration show: 1) a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court; 2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or 3) a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts for dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court. for reconsideration. Defendant has not met his burden

Defendant's primary arguments for

reconsideration are that the document that I ordered produced, the "analyst's analysis," is protected by the deliberative 1

1 2 3 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

process privilege and is not properly part of a complete administrative record as a matter of statutory construction. However defendant did not raise these arguments in his earlier filings. Dated: Defendant's motion is therefore DENIED.

November 19, 2009 Bernard Zimmerman United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\HASELTINE v. ASTRUE\ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.wpd

2