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)

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