Frank v. County of Humboldt et al

Filing 151

Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte denying 149 Motion for Reconsideration re 147 Order on Motions to Compel.(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MINNY FRANK,
Plaintiff,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C -13-00089 MMC (EDL)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE

v.
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, et al.,
Defendants.

/

13
14

On April 9, 2014, the Court issued an Order resolving five discovery motions filed by

15

Plaintiff. Also on April 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Request for

16

Judicial Notice, arguing that she believed that the Court failed to take notice of her reply brief filed

17

in support of her Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses from the Williams Defendants.

18

Because the Court reviewed all materials filed in connection with all five discovery motions, the

19

Request for Judicial Notice is denied as moot.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Civil Local Rule 7-9 governs motions for leave to file motions for reconsideration.
Subsection (b) of that Rule states:
(b) Form and Content of Motion for Leave. A motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration must be made in accordance with the requirements of Civil L.R. 7-9.
The moving party must specifically show:
(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.
Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Here, Plaintiff failed to file a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for

1

Reconsideration as required by the Local Rules in advance of filing a Motion for Reconsideration.

2

However, even if the Court construes Plaintiff’s April 9, 2014 filing as a Motion for Leave to File a

3

Motion for Reconsideration, that Motion is denied.

4

A district court has the discretion to reconsider its prior orders. Sch. Dist. No. 1 J,

5

Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). Reconsideration is

6

appropriate if the district court: (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed

7

clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in

8

controlling law." Id.; see also Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Generally, motions for reconsideration are

9

disfavored, and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th

11

Cir.1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought.

12

See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz.1998) (citing Above the Belt,

13

Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va.1983)). Here, Plaintiff has failed to

14

provide a basis for reconsideration. She has failed to present newly discovered evidence, and she

15

has not shown that the Court committed clear error or that the initial decision was unjust. Further,

16

Plaintiff has not cited an intervening change in the law.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
Dated: April 10, 2014
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Chief Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2