Solis v. Seafood Peddler of San Rafael, Inc. et al

Filing 87

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 82 Motion for Leave to File (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2013)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

HILDA L. SOLIS,

7
8
9

Plaintiff,
v.
SEAFOOD PEDDLER OF SAN RAFAEL,
et al.,

No. C 12-0116 PJH
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Defendants.
_______________________________/

12
13

Plaintiff Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor, (“plaintiff”) seeks leave to file a motion for

14

reconsideration of the court’s December 4, 2012 order regarding the scope of the

15

informant’s privilege in this case. The motion is DENIED.

16
17
18
19
20

Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, a party seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration
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

21
22
23
24

(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.

25

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). In addition, the party seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration

26

may not repeat any argument previously made in support of or in opposition to the

27

interlocutory order which the party seeks to have reconsidered. Id. 7-9(c).

28

Here, plaintiff argues that the court did “not consider the material facts in this case or

1

the applicable law presented to the Court in support of the application of the informant’s

2

privilege.” Specifically, plaintiff contends that the court did not consider plaintiff’s

3

arguments regarding the potential harm to employee informants, or the arguments

4

regarding plaintiff’s evidentiary burden. This argument is not persuasive. The court

5

considered the arguments raised by plaintiff, but reached a decision that was adverse to

6

plaintiff’s position. Such circumstances do not warrant a motion for reconsideration.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: January 8, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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