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)

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