Lewis v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. et al

Filing 37

ORDER Re Supplemental Briefing for 35 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/2/2013. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

AARON LEWIS,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C-12-6354 EMC

Plaintiff,
v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., et al.,

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.
(Docket No. 35)

13
___________________________________/
14
15

Previously, the Court ordered Plaintiff to execute an authorization form permitting the

16

release of information from the Social Security Administration and the Employment Development

17

Department related to Plaintiff’s claims for and receipt of disability benefits. See Docket No. 33

18

(order). Plaintiff has now moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. In his motion,

19

Plaintiff maintains that he should granted leave because a material difference in fact exists from that

20

which Defendant presented to the Court – i.e., he did not in fact decline to assist in preparation of a

21

joint discovery letter but rather asked Defendant for time to provide his input until after the

22

mediation in the case was completed. Plaintiff does not address the merits of the underlying

23

discovery dispute between the parties, indicating that he will address the merits in his motion to

24

reconsider (assuming that the Court gives him leave). See Mot. at 5 (asking for “an opportunity to

25

be heard” on the issue).

26

Plaintiff should have addressed the merits in his pending motion. If, e.g., his position on the

27

merits was completely unsubstantiated, then the fact that Defendant allegedly deprived him of his

28

opportunity to participate in the joint letter process would not be material. However, in the interest

1

of justice, the Court shall give Plaintiff an opportunity to address this deficiency. Plaintiff shall have

2

until August 7, 2013, to state his substantive position on why the relief sought by Defendant should

3

not be granted. His position should be provided in a letter brief no longer than one-and-a-half

4

single-spaced pages. If the Court requires further briefing and/or a hearing, it shall notify the

5

parties.

6
7

In the meantime, the Court’s order requiring execution of the authorization form is
temporarily stayed.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: August 2, 2013

12

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2