Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 612

ORDER denying #611 Motion for Reconsideration (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2010)

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document612

Filed03/10/10 Page1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER, PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as governor of California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in his official capacity as attorney general of California; MARK B HORTON, in his official capacity as director of the California Department of Public Health and state registrar of vital statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as deputy director of health information & strategic planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his official capacity as clerkrecorder of the County of Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in his official capacity as registrarrecorder/county clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ­ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIOFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Defendant-Intervenors. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No

C 09-2292 VRW ORDER

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document612

Filed03/10/10 Page2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant-intervenors, the official proponents of Proposition 8 ("proponents") move for reconsideration of a portion of Doc #610, the order granting proponents' motion to compel production from nonparties that opposed Proposition 8. Doc #611.

Specifically, proponents seek to require the nonparties to include additional search terms in their electronic document review. 4. For the reasons explained below, proponents' motion for Id at

reconsideration is DENIED. First, under Civ LR 7-9(a), a party that wishes to file a motion for reconsideration must first obtain leave of the court. Proponents have not sought leave; accordingly, proponents' motion is not properly before the court. Second, proponents have not identified one of the three bases for reconsideration under Civ LR 7-9(b): (1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or (2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order. Proponents argue they did not have the opportunity to present the court with an opposition to nonparty Equality California's March 3 declaration before the court issued its order on March 5. at 3-4. Doc #611

But at the February 25 hearing, the court stated its

intent to limit the nonparties' burden through specific search terms for electronic documents. Proponents did not address any 2

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document612

Filed03/10/10 Page3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

concerns regarding electronic search terms at that time or in the week between the hearing and the court's order. Accordingly,

proponents did not exercise reasonable diligence under Civ LR 7-9(b)(1). The remaining bases for reconsideration are not

relevant here because the law and facts remain the same and because proponents did not present their argument to the court before the order issued. Thus, proponents have not presented the court with a

basis to reconsider its order. Finally, even if the court were to consider the merits of proponents' motion, the court would not include the proposed additional search terms. The search terms in the court's order

ease any unnecessary production burden on the nonparties under FRCP 45(c)(1) and focus the production on relevant documents. at 13. Doc #610

The breadth of the proposed additional search terms would

significantly increase the likelihood of "hits," thereby increasing the number of documents that would need to be reviewed. On the

other hand, proponents have not made a showing that their proposed search terms would capture a significant number of responsive documents that otherwise would not be produced. The additional

search terms would thus add an unnecessary burden to the nonparties' production. \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 3

Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document612

Filed03/10/10 Page4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Because proponents' motion for reconsideration does not conform to the requirements of the local rules and because the court would not grant the motion even if it were properly before the court, proponents' motion for reconsideration, Doc #611, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

JOSEPH C SPERO United States Magistrate Judge

4