Pearson v. Pausha
ORDER denying 55 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 53 Subpoena Request filed by Oliver Emanuel Pearson. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 10/7/2011. Mailed to Pearson. (TAG, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
:ATRICK E, DUFFY. CLERK
!JEPtJTY ClERK. IMSSOt.ii.:J\
OLIVER EMANUEL PEARSON,
OCT 07 20tl
Cause No. CV 10-00035-H-DWM
Pending is Plaintiff Oliver Pearson's Subpoena Request (dkt # 53) and
Objections to September 29,2011 Order which has been construed as a Motion for
Reconsideration. (dkt # 55).
The subpoena request is the same request which has been denied twice
already and will be denied again. Local Rule 7.3 requires a party seeking
reconsideration of an order to first file a motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration. The motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration must
demonstrate that the facts or applicable law are materially different from the facts
or applicable law presented to the Court before its initial denial of the motion or
that the party did not know such fact or law before entry of the order despite the
exercise of reasonable diligence. Mr. Pearson has not complied with this rule.
Mr. Pearson presents no new argument to convince the Court the prior
denials of his subpoena requests were inappropriate. Mr. Pearson did file a motion
for discovery prior to Defendant's entry of appearance and prior to a scheduling
order being issued. That motion was denied on that basis (dkt # 17). Moreover,
that request did not ask for the documents and materials currently sought in Mr.
Pearson's subpoena request. The Scheduling Order clearly set out the discovery
process and provided Mr. Pearson with copies of the applicable rules. No motions
regarding discovery were filed after the Scheduling Order. If Defendant failed to
comply with his discovery obligations, Mr. Pearson had the opportunity to file a
motion to compel on or before the April 1,2011 motions deadline. He did not.
The Court has ruled on this issue. It denied Mr. Pearson's request for
discovery subpoenas twice now and as such has already reconsidered the denial of
the subpoena requests. Mr. Pearson does not seem to understand that he will not
be getting further discovery in this case. His requests for discovery subpoenas
have been denied.
Mr. Pearson is correct that pro se pleadings are construed liberally,
something the Court has been careful to do in this case. Nevertheless, even pro se
litigants are held to the requirements ofthe federal and local rules, and a failure to
appropriately follow those rules may result in sanctions up to dismissal. Ghazali
v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir.l995).
Mr. Pearson must comply with the Court's order and not rehash every ruling
he does not like. Mr. Pearson has tiled his subpoena requests three times now.
The Court has provided a detailed analysis as to why those subpoena requests
which constitute discovery are denied. This abusive litigation practice interferes
with the Court's ability to hear this case and is a waste ofjudicial resources. Mr.
Pearson must now move on and prepare this matter for trial without the documents
he seeks. Failure to comply with the Court's order may lead to dismissal of the
case. Fed. R. Civ. P. l6(t)(1)(C).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED TIlAT:
1. Mr. Pearson's Subpoena Request (dkt # 53) is denied.
2. Mr. Pearson's Motion for Reconsideration (dkt # 55) is denied.
3. Mr. Pearson must promptly infoffil the Court and opposing counsel for
the Defendant of any change of address.
Dated this'+ day of October, 2011.
Donald "W. Moll y, District Judge
tes Di trict Court
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?