Szmania v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 46

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 45 MOTION for Reconsideration, signed by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. (KMP)

Download PDF
Case 3:20-cv-06228-MLP Document 46 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 8 DANIEL GLEN SZMANIA, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 Case No. C20-6228-MLP ORDER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12 Defendant. 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (“Plaintiff’s 15 Motion”) of this Court’s previous order (dkt. # 43) denying his motion to compel. (Dkt. # 45.) 16 Plaintiff’s Motion argues that reconsideration is appropriate because new facts demonstrate that 17 an unnamed individual at the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) changed his peripheral 18 vertigo and Type II diabetes diagnoses dates. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff further contends that he is 19 entitled to his requested discovery “no matter if it is allowed to be viewed by this Court or not” 20 and that “it does NOT matter if the documents can be used in this case or not before this 21 Court[.]” (Id. at 3-4.) 22 Under Local Rule 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district. Such 23 motions will be granted only upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts ORDER - 1 Case 3:20-cv-06228-MLP Document 46 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 2 1 or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier without 2 reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). 3 Here, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate manifest error in the Court’s prior ruling nor 4 presented new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the Court’s attention 5 earlier through reasonable diligence. Plaintiff’s cited new facts evidence comes from an April 6 2019 VA Problem List (dkt. # 45-2) and a July 2021 VA Problem List (dkt. # 45-3). Plaintiff’s 7 Motion does not indicate that he recently received these documents or otherwise provide any 8 explanation for his failure to cite to this evidence in support of his motion to compel. As such, 9 the arguments and evidence presented in Plaintiff’s Motion could have been brought to the 10 Court’s attention earlier through reasonable diligence. See LCR 7(h)(1). 11 In any event, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding whether the diagnoses dates were changed 12 for his peripheral vertigo and Type II diabetes fails to demonstrate manifest error in the Court’s 13 prior ruling or identify authority demonstrating Plaintiff is entitled to discovery in this case. This 14 case concerns Plaintiff’s appeal of a Social Security disability determination made in July 2020 15 (see dkt. # 11 at 19-31); any change in diagnoses dates made by the VA in July 2021 is not 16 relevant. 17 Plaintiff has not made either of the showings required by LCR 7(h)(1). Accordingly, 18 Plaintiff’s Motion (dkt. # 45) is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to 19 the parties. 20 Dated this 17th day of November, 2021. 21 A 22 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 23 ORDER - 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?