The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN PART AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL IN PART (Document 74)
Plaintiff Joshua J. Cantu ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He filed a First Amended Complaint on July 26, 2010, and the Court found cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant M. Garcia and three Doe Defendants. Defendant Garcia filed an answer on December 20, 2011.
The Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on January 3, 2012. On September 12, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to compel and his motion to modify the Scheduling Order. The deadline to amend the pleadings was extended to November 13, 2012, the discovery deadline was extended to January 14, 2013, and the dispositive motion deadline was extended to March 14, 2013. Plaintiff's recent motions to extend the discovery and amendment deadline have been denied.*fn1
On January 8, 2013, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff's additional discovery motions. Specifically, the Court denied Plaintiff's motions for subpoenas, motions for depositions by written questions, motion to compel, motion for sanctions and motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories.
On January 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the January 8, 2013, discovery order. Defendant did not file an opposition.
Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) "is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances ..." exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir.2008). The moving party "must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control...." Id. In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to identify the motion or order in issue and when it was made, and show "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."
"A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the ... court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law," Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.2009), and "[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the [c]court's decision, and recapitulation ..." of that which was already considered by the court in rendering its decision.
U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D.Cal.2001).
Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir.1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir.1983). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See e.g., Kern--Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal.1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.1987).
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of each of the eight discovery motions addressed by the January 8, 2013, order. After reviewing Plaintiff's motion, the January 8, 2013, order and the history of discovery in this action, the Court finds that reconsideration of Plaintiff's October 15, 2012, motion to compel (Document 59) and November 8, 2012, motion to order Defendant to identify employees (Document 60) is warranted. The motion for reconsideration is therefore GRANTED IN PART.
Discovery in this action opened on January 3, 2012. On February 9, 2012, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories on Defendant Garcia. After receiving an extension of time, Defendant's responses were due on or about May 1, 2012. Without explanation, however, Defendant did not serve his responses until August 29, 2012. Based on this delay, Plaintiff was granted an extension of the discovery deadline, amendment deadline and dispositive motion deadline.
Presumably upon reviewing Defendant's responses, Plaintiff began filing discovery motions to aid in his attempts to discover the identities of the three Doe Defendants who were allegedly present during the incident at issue. Plaintiff's motions were either directly related to prior requests or sought additional discovery based on Defendant's failure to provide information. Simply put, Plaintiff has been diligently attempting to discover the identities of the three Doe Defendants for almost one year. For the reasons ...