Chamberlin v. Hartog, Baer & Hand, APC et al

Filing 101

Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 100 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2021)

Case 3:19-cv-08243-JCS Document 101 Filed 04/27/21 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHRISTOPHER CHAMBERLIN,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 19-cv-08243-JCS

v.
HARTOG, BAER & HAND, APC, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 100

12

On April 26, 2021, Plaintiff Christopher Chamberlin, pro se, moved for leave to a file a

13

motion for reconsideration of a discovery order (dkt. 92) issued on March 8, 2021. That order

14

held that Chamberlin could not obtain discovery regarding an alleged conflict of interest

15

potentially relevant to certain of his affirmative defenses because the Court had previously

16

dismissed with prejudice Chamberlin’s claims based on the same theory.

17

This Court’s local rules require that a party seeking leave to move for reconsideration of an

18

interlocutory order “must specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion, and one

19

of the following:”

20
21
22
23
24
25

(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

26

(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.

27

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). “Unless otherwise ordered by the assigned Judge, no response need be filed and

28

no hearing will be held concerning a motion for leave to file a motion to reconsider.” Civ. L.R.

Case 3:19-cv-08243-JCS Document 101 Filed 04/27/21 Page 2 of 3

1

7-9(d). Chamberlin rests his present motion on all three grounds for reconsideration allowed by

2

the local rule.

3

The motion for leave is DENIED for failure to show reasonable diligence. Chamberlin

4

waited forty-nine days from the Court’s discovery order to seek reconsideration. He states in a

5

declaration that inflammation of his vocal cords and the recent discovery of a polyp have taken his

6

attention away from this case, but Chamberlin has continued to represent himself in other aspects

7

of the case during that time, and has not sufficiently explained why he could not bring the present

8

motion sooner, rather than waiting until nearly two months after fact discovery closed.
Even if Chamberlin had shown diligence, the Court would deny the motion. To obtain

9

reconsideration under subpart (1) of Local Rule 7-9(b), see Mot. for Leave (dkt. 100) at 3 (citing

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

that subpart), Chamberlin must show not only “a material difference in fact or law exists from that

12

which was presented to the Court,” but also “that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party

13

applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order.”

14

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1). Chamberlin has not identified any error in the fact or law previously

15

presented to the Court, nor has he shown that he lacked knowledge of any fact or law at the time

16

of the previous order. Constitutional theories of due process that Chamberlin simply failed to

17

address in the original discovery dispute are not a “difference” from the law presented.

18

Regardless, the Court is not persuaded that Chamberlin has any right to discovery1 that would be

19

relevant only to a conflict-of-interest theory that the Court previously held untenable under

20

California law.
Turning to subpart (2) of the local rule, the evidence that Chamberlin cites as having newly

21
22

emerged through discovery shows only the highly attenuated familial connection that the Court

23

previously held insufficient to establish a conflict of interest under California law. See Mot. for

24

Leave at 6–7. Neither the existence of a Levin family email listserv nor the fact that Defendant

25
26
27
28

1

The order at issue concerned only the scope of permissible discovery. That discovery order did
not resolve what arguments Chamberlin may present in his defense, or what evidence already in
his possession he may use to support those arguments. Cf. Mot. for Leave at 3–6
(mischaracterizing the discovery order as effectively striking affirmative defenses and preventing
Chamberlin from presenting evidence he has already received).
2

Case 3:19-cv-08243-JCS Document 101 Filed 04/27/21 Page 3 of 3

1

John Hartog received a “New Litigation Matter Report” including the name “Levin,” Chamberlin

2

Decl. (dkt. 100-1) ¶¶ 5–9, 14–15, alters the Court’s conclusions that “an attorney’s sister’s

3

husband’s cousin is [not] the sort of ‘personal relationship’ contemplated by the [applicable

4

California] rule,” and that Chamberlin has offered no plausible reason to believe that any

5

defendant would be influenced merely by an adverse party having the surname “Levin,” see Order

6

re Mot. to Dismiss 1st Am. Compl. (dkt. 60) at 9. The fact that attorney Julie Woods prepared

7

discovery that was never served, Chamberlin Decl. ¶ 16, could perhaps be relevant to

8

Chamberlin’s remaining malpractice claim, but does not alter the Court’s analysis of his conflict-

9

of-interest theory.

10

As for manifest failure to consider facts or dispositive legal argument previously presented

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

to the court under subpart (3)—which Chamberlin cites only in his notice of motion and does not

12

address in his argument—Chamberlin has not identified any facts or dispositive argument

13

previously presented that the Court failed to consider.

14

Accordingly, Chamberlin’s motion for leave to file is DENIED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: April 27, 2021
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3