Salazar v. Monaco Enterprises Inc et al

Filing 317

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 296) denying 296 Motion for Reconsideration Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (VR, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

MAXIMILLIAN SALAZAR III,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,
-vsMONACO ENTERPRISES, INC., GENE
MONACO, and ROGER BARNO,
Defendants.

12
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO.

CV-12-0186-LRS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 296)

14
15

BEFORE THE COURT, is Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration of Order

16

Re: Defendants’ Motion For Sanctions, ECF No. 296, filed on June 13,

17

2014, and noted without oral argument for July 14, 2014.

18

the court to reconsider its June 6, 2014 "Order Re Defendants’ Motion For

19

Sanctions" (ECF No. 282) which ordered sanctions against Plaintiff’s

20

counsel, William Gilbert, under Fed.R.Civ.P., Rule 26(g).

21
22
23

Plaintiff asks

A motion for reconsideration can only be granted when a district
court: (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; or (2) committed
clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) there

24
has been an intervening change in controlling law.
25
County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003).
26
ORDER - 1

Dixon v. Wallowa

1

Plaintiff asserts the Court’s decision was in error in that it

2

“intrudes and undermines the attorney client privilege and the work

3

product doctrine.”

4

should have called for an in camera review to determine the potential

5

ECF No. 296 at 2. Plaintiff argues that the Court

evidentiary value of the documents concerning Rodney Barno, a brother to

6
Defendant Roger Barno.

Plaintiff maintains the documents at issue have

7
a purpose in this case or they would never have been gathered by
8
Plaintiff’s counsel and produced to Defendants.

Plaintiff further

9
10
11

points

out

that

the

disclosed

documents

were

publicly

available.

Plaintiff claims the purpose of these documents is at the heart of the

12

issue currently before the Court.

13

clearly and unquestionably fall within the category of “opinion” work

14

product, which enjoys nearly absolute immunity.

15

Plaintiff concludes the purposes

ECF No. 296 at 5.

Plaintiff contemporaneously filed an in camera document with his

16

motion to reconsider.

17

document and is still perplexed as to the relevance of Defendant Barno’s

18

brother’s criminal history either for direct testimony or impeachment.

19
20

ECF No. 297.

The undersigned has reviewed said

Rodney Barno is not involved in this litigation as a witness or a party,
and counsel for Plaintiff has failed to provide reasonable evidence to

21
show otherwise.
22
In

camera

review

is

a

process

by

which

individual

23
documents/materials

are

identified

for

potential

admissibility

or

24
25
26

disclosure. In the matter for which reconsideration is requested, the
documents were public court records or newspaper articles.

ORDER - 2

What was not

1

disclosed was the relevance Rodney Barno’s criminal history had on the

2

retaliation case brought by Plaintiff Salazar against three Defendants,

3

one of which is merely a brother to Rodney Barno.

4
5

The Court will not reconsider its Order (ECF No. 282).

Plaintiff’s

in camera document (ECF No. 297) filed with Plaintiff’s motion for

6
reconsideration, fails to show the Rodney Barno documents or his criminal
7
history have any evidentiary value for this retaliation case whatsoever.
8
The Court finds that the materials certified by counsel under FRCP 26
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

violate the terms of the rule and that reconsideration is not merited.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration,

ECF No. 296, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter
this Order.
DATED this 11th day of July, 2014.

17
s/Lonny R. Suko

18
19

LONNY R. SUKO
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 3