Hughes v. UnumProvident Corporation et al

Filing 76

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 72 Request for Leave to Seek Reconsideration (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. _______________________________/ On October 3, 2008, the court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. Pursuant to Civ. L. R. 7-9(a), plaintiff now requests leave to file a motion for reconsideration of that order, on grounds that the Declaration of John Sargeant ­ which was ordered stricken by the court in its order ­ is relevant, contained no improper legal conclusions, and should not have been excluded. Alternatively, plaintiff seeks reconsideration on grounds that the court should have stricken only those offending portions of the Sargeant Declaration that contained legal conclusions. Plaintiff requests leave on the basis of "a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts." However, plaintiff's request does not demonstrate an adequate basis for this claim. Plaintiff does not, for example, explain the nature of plaintiff's argument or sufficiently establish for the court which material facts its prior order failed to consider, and/or the effects of that failure upon the court's holding. While plaintiff does cite to two additional cases in its short request, plaintiff also does not sufficiently explain the significance of those cases to any conclusion that the court manifestly failed to consider material facts (or dispositive legal arguments). Moreover, after reviewing the cases, the court finds that the cases do not support any obvious conclusion that the court erred in its LYLE HUGHES, Plaintiff, No. C 07-4088 PJH ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO SEEK RECONSIDERATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

prior order. In sum, the admissibility of the Sargeant Declaration was previously presented to and considered by the court in its initial order, and nothing submitted by plaintiff in the instant request justifies the court's departure from that order. Accordingly, the request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration on that issue is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 22, 2008 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2