IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 5, 2011
ROBERT GUY BAKER, PLAINTIFF,
On June 27, 2011, plaintiff filed a "Motion Objecting to Documents 6a-b." Dckt. No. 56. Defendants opposed plaintiff's motion. Dckt. No. 58. The documents referenced by plaintiff were produced to him by defendants in accordance with the court's June 3, 2011 order. Dckt. No. 52. In that order, the undersigned explained that the court had performed an in camera review of those documents, and determined that the documents were reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, and should be provided to plaintiff. Id. Defendants subsequently filed a notice of compliance with the court's order. Dckt. No. 54. Plaintiff does not clearly explain the basis for his motion, and the record reflects that defendants have complied with the undersigned's June 3, 2011 order. See id.; Dckt. No. 58.To the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court's June 3, 2011 order, the court notes that Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state "what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion," and "why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion." E.D. Cal., Local Rule 230(j)(3)-(4). Plaintiff's motion does not describe new or different facts or circumstances that would warrant reconsideration of the June 3, 2011 order.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's June 27, 2011 motion is denied.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.