UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 28, 2011
J. WALKER, ET AL., MTN FOR RECONSIDERATION - DKT. #37 DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Peggy A. Leen United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion for Permission to File a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. #37), which were filed together as one document. The court has considered the Motion.
Plaintiff seeks to have the court reconsider it's Order (Dkt. #33) denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. #25) on the grounds that (a) the court should not have relied on Defendants' assertions that they not in possession, custody, or control of responsive documents; (b) the documents Plaintiff requested are relevant; (c) Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibits the court from accepting Defendants' representations concerning possession, custody, or control of certain documents; and (d) the court should not have sustained Defendants' objections to Plaintiff's request for personnel files on the grounds of privilege.
Reconsideration of a previous order is appropriate where the court: (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. See All Hawaii Tours, Corp. v. Polynesian Cultural Center, 116 F.R.D. 645, 648 (D.Hawaii 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 855 F.2d 860 (9th Cir.1988). There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration. Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Here, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing grounds for reconsideration of the court's previous Order (Dkt. #33). Defendants' discovery responses were signed under Rule 26(g)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that by signing, to the best of defense counsel's knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, their responses were complete and correct. The documents Plaintiff seeks are not in Defendants' possession, custody, or control.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Permission to File a Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #37) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.
Dated this 28th day of January, 2011.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.