Ciampi v City of Palo Alto, et al

Filing 164

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 163 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

JOSEPH CIAMPI,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF PALO ALTO, a government entity; )
LYNNE JOHNSON, an individual; CHIEF
)
DENNIS BURNS, an individual; OFFICER
)
KELLY BURGER, an individual; OFFICER
)
MANUEL TEMORES, an individual; OFFICER )
APRIL WAGNER, an individual; AGENT DAN )
RYAN; SERGEANT NATASHA POWERS,
)
individual,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

Case No.: 09-CV-02655-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

On May 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed a request for clarification of portions of the Court’s May

21

11, 2011 order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

22

The Court construed Plaintiff’s request as a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration,

23

and denied Plaintiff’s request, finding that he had not met the standard for leave to file a motion for

24

reconsideration set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-9(b). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a second motion for

25

leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff seeks leave to move for reconsideration on two

26

grounds: (1) a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal

27

arguments which were presented to the Court before issuance of its summary judgment order, and

28
1
Case No.: 09-CV-02655-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

(2) the emergence of new material facts allegedly presented by Defendants in their response to

2

Plaintiff’s pending motion for sanctions.

3
4
5

reconsideration:

11

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.

12

The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s claim that the Court failed to consider material

6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) provides that on a motion for leave to file a motion for

13

facts and dispositive legal arguments presented at the motion hearing. As in his prior request for

14

clarification, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in its ruling on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment

15

claims and in finding that Plaintiff may not present lay testimony analyzing video evidence to

16

demonstrate alteration or manipulation by Defendants. The Court considered these claims in

17

ruling on Plaintiff’s request for clarification and found that Plaintiff had not presented material

18

facts or legal arguments that would change the Court’s analysis. Here, similarly, Plaintiff does not

19

present new or overlooked facts or arguments which would have changed the Court’s analysis.

20

Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff claims that the Court’s May 11, 2011 Order conflicts with the

21

Court’s “findings” at the motion hearing, the Court wishes to clarify that it did not make findings

22

of fact or conclusions of law at the motion hearing. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s argument that the

23

Court’s Order conflicts with its prior findings lacks merit.

24

Plaintiff also seeks reconsideration on grounds that Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s

25

pending motion for sanctions presents new material facts that should alter the Court’s ruling on

26

Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim and its evidentiary rulings. Because the Court found that

27

Plaintiff had not pled a Brady violation in his complaint, see Order Granting in Part and Denying

28

in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at 13 n.6, these new facts are unlikely to
2
Case No.: 09-CV-02655-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

justify reconsideration of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim. Similarly, new facts regarding

2

Defendants’ alleged alteration of evidence are unlikely to have any impact on the Court’s ruling

3

that Plaintiff may not offer lay opinion analyzing video and audio recordings to demonstrate

4

falsification. Nonetheless, the Court will consider these facts and evidence in ruling on Plaintiff’s

5

motion for sanctions, which is set for hearing on June 30, 2011. If, at that time, the Court

6

determines that these new facts would affect the Court’s summary judgment ruling, the Court will

7

take appropriate action.

8
9

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to move for reconsideration is
DENIED. Barring exceptional circumstances, the Court will not consider any further motions

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

requesting clarification or reconsideration of its May 11, 2011 summary judgment order.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: June 7, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Case No.: 09-CV-02655-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION