The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL IN PART (Document 81) ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES
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 deadline to amend is currently April 15, 2013, and the dispositive motion deadline is May 28, 2013.
On February 15, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to compel without prejudice, explaining that Plaintiff did not attach the discovery at issue and the Court was therefore unable to review it.
On March 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the February 15, 2013, 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).
In the Court's February 15, 2013, order, the Court explained that although Plaintiff cited to Exhibits A and B, neither were attached to the motion. Moreover, because the discovery had not been filed with any previous motions, the Court was unable to review it. The Court therefore denied Plaintiff's motion without prejudice.
In Plaintiff's March 4, 2013, motion for reconsideration, he states that the Clerk's Office sent the exhibits back to him. For unknown reasons, the Clerk's Office determined that the discovery was not part of a motion and returned it pursuant to Local Rule 250.3. Therefore, because Plaintiff did send in his exhibits with the motion, the Court GRANTS his motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiff's motion to compel seeks further responses to Requests for Production, Set Two, ...