UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 31, 2007
FELIX ESPINO, JR., PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, ET AL., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Louisa S Porter United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT OF EXPERT WITNESS WITHOUT PREJUDICE [Doc. No. 115.]
On October 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for assignment of an expert witness. This is in essence a motion for reconsideration since Plaintiff previously filed the same motion on January 12, 2007. Defendants filed an opposition on October 31, 2007.
On January 12, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint an expert witness. On January 17, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for assignment of an expert witness concluding that the facts in the case are not complex that a trier of fact would require the assistance of an expert witness on tasers to understand the evidence or make a fair determination of a fact in issue. (Doc. No. 37.)
In a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff must show "what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exit, or were not shown, upon such prior application." Civ. Local R. 7.1(i); see also Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Coast Packing Co., 236 F. Supp.2d 1130, 1137 (C.D. 2002) (holding that a motion for reconsideration may not repeat "any oral or written argument").
Plaintiff argues that in his previous motion he failed to attach relevant documents that would have probably gotten his motion granted. The exhibits are supporting documents that relate to his claim for excessive force during Plaintiff's arrest. However, his argument that the case is complex is the same. In his motion, Plaintiff does not present any new or different facts to justify an appointment of an expert witness. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's ex parte motion for assignment of an expert witness without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.