Finn v. Boulder City, City Of et al
Filing
78
ORDER Denying 75 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. on 1/12/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CITY OF BOULDER CITY, et al.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
THOMAS W. FINN,
9
10
11
12
13
Case No. 2:14-cv-01835-JAD-GWF
ORDER
14
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel Production of
15
Documents to City of Boulder City (ECF No. 75), filed on December 15, 2016. Defendants filed their
16
Response (ECF No. 76) on December 28, 2016, and Plaintiff filed his Reply (ECF No. 77) on January
17
4, 2017. Plaintiff has requested oral argument. This matter can be decided without the need for oral
18
argument and Plaintiff’s request is therefore denied.
19
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
20
The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 52) which sought
21
production of the minutes and recording of a special closed session of the Boulder City Council. See
22
Order (ECF No. 66) and Order (ECF No. 68). Plaintiff again moves for an order compelling the
23
Defendant to produce the November 27, 2012 meeting minutes. Although Plaintiff cites no legal
24
authority for filing this second motion, it appears to be a motion for reconsideration of the previous
25
orders based on newly discovered evidence.
26
A district court “possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an
27
interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient” so long as it has jurisdiction. City of Los
28
Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001). This plenary
1
power derives from the common law, and is not limited by the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil
2
Procedure, so long as it is not exercised inconsistently with those rules. See id. at 886–87. This district
3
has adopted Local Rule (LR) 59-1 governing motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders.
4
Subsection (a) of the rule states in part:
5
The court possesses the inherent power to reconsider an interlocutory
order for cause, so long as the court retains jurisdiction. Reconsideration
also may be appropriate if (1) there is newly discovered evidence that was
not available when the original motion or response was filed, (2) the court
committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3)
if there is an intervening change in controlling law.
6
7
8
Subsection (b) further states:
9
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. A movant must not repeat
arguments already presented unless (and only to the extent) necessary to
explain controlling, intervening law or to argue new facts. A movant who
repeats arguments will be subject to appropriate sanctions.
10
11
Rule 59-1(a) codifies standards that were previously adopted by decisions in this district. See
12
13
Evans v. Inmate Calling Solutions, 2010 WL 1727841, *1-2 (D.Nev. Apr. 27, 2010); Henry v. Rizzolo,
14
2010 WL 3636278, *1 (D.Nev. Sept. 10, 2010); Home Gambling Network v. Piche, 2014 WL 5686859,
15
*3 (D.Nev. Nov. 4, 2014); and Doud v. Yellow Cab, 2015 WL 5533381, *1 (D.Nev. Sept. 18, 2015).
16
Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel (ECF No. 75) is predicated on the November 2, 2016
17
deposition of witness Stephen Stubbs, an attorney, who testified that he spoke with the Boulder City
18
Attorney, Dave Olsen, shortly after the November 27, 2012 closed meeting, and that Mr. Olsen
19
disclosed to him what was discussed during the meeting. Plaintiff Finn and Mr. Stubbs were previously
20
involved in litigation against each other which was settled at some time prior to Mr. Stubbs’ deposition.
21
Mr. Stubbs’ deposition testimony regarding an alleged conversation four years earlier is not credible
22
evidence that Mr. Olsen disclosed confidential information to him, thereby waiving the City’s attorney-
23
client privilege. Absent reliable corroboration, this “new evidence” is not sufficient to grant
24
reconsideration and reverse this Court’s previous orders. Accordingly,
25
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel Production of
26
Documents to City of Boulder City (ECF No. 75) is denied. Plaintiff’s counsel is cautioned not to file
27
...
28
...
2
1
motions that are not supported by a statement of supporting legal authority. Failure to do so in the
2
future may result in the imposition of sanctions.
3
DATED this 12th day of January, 2017.
4
5
6
______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?