Davis et al v. Hayes et al

Filing 108

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 101 response/motion for reconsideration signed by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Keith Davis, Prisoner ID: 936379)(PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8 KEITH ADAIR DAVIS,

Plaintiffs,

9
10

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.

11 WILLIAM HAYES, et al.,
12
13

Case No. 2:16-cv-01709-RSM-BAT

Defendants.
On December 27, 2017, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel. Dkts. 76 and 98.

14 On January 5, 2018, plaintiff filed a “Response to Dkt. 98,” in which he states again that the
15 documents sent to him by defendants “are not responsive to his requests.” Dkts. 101 and 102.
16 To the extent plaintiff is asking the Court to reconsider its Order (Dkt. 98), the request is denied.
17 The Court has reviewed its Order and plaintiff’s motion and finds no reason to disturb its original
18 ruling which was based, in part, on plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate why the documents that
19 have been produced to him by defendants are either incomplete or not responsive to his requests.
20
21
22
23

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored under the Court’s local rules:
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will
ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of
manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal
authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier
with reasonable diligence.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
-1

1 Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 7(h)(1). Such motions are an “extraordinary remedy,” and “should
2 not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with
3 newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the
4 controlling law.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)
5 (internal citation omitted).
6

In this case plaintiff fails to show manifest error in the Court’s prior ruling, or new facts

7 or legal authority that would warrant reconsideration of the Court’s order. Accordingly,
8 plaintiff’s “response,” Dkt. 101 is DENIED.
9
10
11

DATED this 22nd day of January, 2018.

A

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
-2