Velasquez v. City of Santa Clara et al

Filing 123

ORDER RE: MEET-AND-CONFER. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on January 31, 2014. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2014)

Download PDF
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 VICTOR VELASQUEZ, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 CITY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 5:11-cv-03588-PSG ORDER RE: MEET-AND-CONFER (Re: Docket Nos. 77, 87, 108, and 114) Before the court is a filing 1 from Plaintiff Victor Velasquez that provides a status report on 16 17 the parties’ meet-and-confer responsive to the court’s prior order “to discuss possible limiting 18 instructions or whether other witnesses, particularly percipient witnesses, should also appear by 19 videoconference in lieu of making a physical appearance in court.” 2 Defendants, too, have offered 20 their take on the meet-and-confer. 3 The court agrees with Defendants that, absent an explicit 21 motion for reconsideration, the court will not revisit its prior decision. 4 The court is, however, 22 23 1 See Docket No. 121. 2 Docket No. 119 at 8. 3 See Docket No. 122. 24 25 26 4 27 28 Motions for reconsideration must comply with Civil L.R. 7-9. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a) (“No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion.”); Civil L.R. 7-9(c) (“No motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory 1 Case No.: 5:11-cv-03588-PSG ORDER RE: MEET-AND-CONFER

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?