Hunter v. City and County of San Francisco et al
Filing
117
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURTS DECEMBER 19, 2012 ORDER (Dkt. No. 83) signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
DARRELL HUNTER,
10
Plaintiff,
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
v.
12
13
14
Case No. C11-4911 JSC
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
COURT’S DECEMBER 19, 2012
ORDER (Dkt. No. 83)
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s December 19, 2012 Order (Dkt. No. 74) denying Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend the Complaint to name Defendant Hennessey in his individual capacity.
(Dkt. No. 83.) Because Plaintiff has not shown that the motion is based on any new facts or
evidence that were unavailable to Plaintiff before the Court’s decision, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiff’s original motion sought leave to name Defendant Hennessey in his
individual as well as official capacity based on recently discovered evidence that Hennessey
was the final decision-maker with respect to whether any deputies were disciplined as a
result of the incident underlying this lawsuit. While this information may have been newly
discovered, the Court found that Plaintiff had failed to establish good cause for amendment
because (1) Plaintiff had not acted diligently in pursuing discovery regarding this matter, and
(2) even without this evidence Plaintiff could have pled a claim against Hennessey based on
1
his role as the final policymaker and his alleged failure to properly train and supervise his
2
employees (the basis for his official liability claim), but Plaintiff chose not to do so.
3
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this decision because he contends that newly
4
discovered evidence obtained during his January 8, 2013 deposition of Hennessey bolsters
5
Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages against Defendant Hennessey. The Court is not
6
persuaded by this argument. The testimony elicited during the Hennessey deposition does
7
not amount to a “new material fact,” because it does not alter that Plaintiff did not act
8
diligently to pursue discovery regarding the decision-making process, and that even without
9
this evidence Plaintiff could have pled this claim, but decided not to do so. Further, there
Northern District of California
would be significant prejudice to Hennessey were he to be added in his individual capacity at
11
United States District Court
10
this late stage long after the close of discovery and following summary judgment. Were the
12
Court to allow Plaintiff to add him as a defendant in his individual capacity at this stage, the
13
Court would necessarily have to reopen discovery, set a new briefing schedule for summary
14
judgment, and move the trial date yet again.
15
Accordingly, the Court finds that reconsideration is not warranted under Local Rule
16
7-9. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Motion for
17
Reconsideration is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 83).
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 4, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?