Sonia v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 59

ORDER denying plaintiff's 55 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Hon. James P. Donohue. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Brett Sonia, Prisoner ID: 390444)(SWT)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 MS. BRETT (BROOKE) SONIA, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 Case No. C17-955-JLR-JPD ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. 12 13 14 This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before 15 the Court at the present time on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s prior Order 16 denying her motion to compel discovery. The Court, having considered plaintiff’s motion, and 17 the balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as follows: 18 (1) Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 55) is DENIED. Plaintiff seeks 19 reconsideration of this Court’s March 15, 2018 Order denying her motion to compel discovery. 20 (Dkt. 54.) In that motion, plaintiff sought to compel defendants to respond to interrogatories and 21 requests for production directed to them in December 2017. (See Dkt. 41.) Plaintiff filed his 22 motion to compel after defendants had filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion for 23 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1 1 protective order asking that discovery be stayed pending the Court’s ruling on their summary 2 judgment motion. (Dkts. 35, 39.) The Court granted defendants’ motion for protective order on 3 the grounds that plaintiff had not demonstrated she required any additional discovery to respond 4 to defendants’ summary judgment motion. (Dkt. 54 at 4.) The Court then denied plaintiff’s 5 motion to compel discovery as moot. (Id.) 6 The Court will ordinarily deny motions for reconsideration “in the absence of a showing 7 of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not 8 have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). Plaintiff has 9 not demonstrated any error in the Court’s prior ruling, nor has she identified new facts or legal 10 authority which would justify a different result. In particular, plaintiff makes no showing that 11 additional discovery was required in order for her to adequately respond to defendants’ summary 12 judgment motion, which she did in great detail. Moreover, the Court has now issued a Report 13 and Recommendation recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. 14 Thus, any request for additional discovery at this juncture is clearly moot. 15 (2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for 16 defendants, and to the Honorable James L. Robart. 17 DATED this 21st day of May, 2018. 18 A 19 JAMES P. DONOHUE United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

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?