UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
February 20, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
ROYA RAHMANI, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert M. Takasugi United States District Sr. Judge
ORDER DENYING GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISCOVERY ORDER
This matter has come before the court on the government's motion for reconsideration of the court's January 20, 2009 discovery order. Government's Motion for Reconsideration of Discovery Order ("Recons. Mot."), Doc. No. 893. The government argues the court should reconsider its order as it pertains to the government's disclosure, under Brady and its progeny, of documentation and materials relevant to the U.S. Government's provision of material support and resources to the MEK or its aliases between 1997 and 2001, and thereafter. The court, having considered the papers filed herein, finds the government has failed to make the required showing under Local Civil Rule 7-18 for reconsideration of the court's discovery order.
As the government recognizes, the arguments presented in its motion for reconsideration and in its Reply to Defendants' Opposition, Doc. No. 903, were not presented to the court before; nor does the government explain why these arguments could not have been made before. Furthermore, the government makes no showing that a manifest injustice would result were the court not to reconsider its discovery order; nor does the government provide any support for its assertion that "[s]ome of this material may be classified," and that "disclosure at this time could pose security concerns." If indeed the government is concerned about such manifest injustice, one would expect the government to have voiced that concern in its original opposition. Lastly, the government does not make any showing why disclosure upon conviction, as opposed to now, would reduce the "security concerns" or the amount of material that "may be classified." To the extent there are any security concerns or classified material, the court's prior order already provides for the government to submit questionable documents in camera for the court's review.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Government's Motion for Reconsideration of Discovery Order, Doc. No. 893, is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Sur-Reply to Government's Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. No. 905; and Government's Response to Defendants' Sur-Reply Re: Motion for Reconsideration of Discovery Order, Doc. No. 907 were not considered by the court and are HEREBY STRICKEN from the record.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.