Weimer v. Google Inc. et al
ORDER that Weimer' s latest motion (Doc. 56) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not consider any further filings-including any additional motions for reconsideration-in this action unless they relate to Weimer's ability to appeal the Court's decision. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 12/12/2018. (APP)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
DEC 12 2013
Clerk, U.S Courts
District Of Montana
GOOGLE INC.; MICROSOFT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Before the Court is Plaintiff Anthony Weimer's Objection to the Court's
Order ofNovember 21, 2018. (Doc. 56.) Weimer asks the Court to reconsider its
Order denying his previous motion to reconsider. The Court construes the latest
motion as a second motion for reconsideration.
Local Rule 7.3 provides:
(a) Leave of Court Required. Before the entry of a judgment
adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and liabilities of all
the parties in a case, any party may make a motion before a judge
requesting that the judge grant the party leave to file a motion for
reconsideration of any interlocutory order made by that judge on
any ground set forth in L.R. 7.3(b)(l) or (2). No party may file a
motion for reconsideration without prior leave of court.
(b)Form and Content of Motion for Leave. A motion for leave to file
a motion for reconsideration must be limited to seven pages and
must specifically meet at least one of the following two criteria:
(1) (A) the facts or applicable law are materially different
from the facts or applicable law that the parties presented
to the court before entry of the order for which
reconsideration is sought, and
(B) despite the exercise of reasonable diligence, the party
applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or
law before entry of the order; or
(2) new material facts emerged or a change of law occurred
after entry of the order.
(c) Prohibition Against Repetition of Argument. No motion for leave
to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written
argument made by the applying party before entry of the order.
Violation of this restriction subjects the offending party to
Weimer's latest filing is out of compliance with the local rules. He did not
file a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. However, just as the
Court did with his last motion for reconsideration, it will construe Weimer' s pro se
filing liberally and excuse the error.
More problematically, Weimer's filing does not comply with Rule 7.3(c).
The Court has heard and responded to the same factual and legal arguments twice
already-first, in its Order adopting the Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 51 ),
and second, in its Order denying Weimer's first motion for reconsideration (Doc.
55). The only new argument raised in Weimer's latest filings-that the Court's
denial ofWeimer's claims constitutes an act of rebellion against the United
No matter how liberally it is construed, Weimer's latest filing gives no
colorable reason to reconsider the Order dismissing this case (Doc. 51) or the
Order denying reconsideration (Doc. 55). There has been no "mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" on the part of the Court or any party;
no "newly discovered evidence"; no "fraud ... , misrepresentation, or misconduct
by an opposing party"; no void judgment; and no change in law or manifest legal
error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Weimer' s latest motion (Doc. 56) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not consider any further
filings-including any additional motions for reconsideration-in this action
unless they relate to Weimer's ability to appeal the Court's decision. Appeal is the
only remaining remedy available to Weimer. Any further filings in this action that
do not relate to Weimer's ability to appeal the Court's decision will be stricken on
the grounds that the case is now closed.
DATED this l2.(.hday of December, 2018.
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District 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?