United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF Nos. 12, 13, 14)
STANLEY A. BOONE, District Judge.
This matter arises on Petitioners' motion for reconsideration on the order denying their motion to compel production. The Court having reviewed and considered the motion, opposition and reply, finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g). Accordingly, the previously scheduled hearing set on July 16, 2014 will be vacated and the parties will not be required to appear at that time. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for reconsideration shall be denied.
On September 26, 2011, Plaintiffs Matthew Edwards and Georgia Browne ("Petitioners"), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed this class action against Defendants National Milk Producers Federation; Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.; Dairylea Cooperative, Inc.; Agrimark, Inc.; and Land of Lakes, Inc. In the action, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired to slaughter milk cows in order to artificially inflate milk prices from 2004 to the present in violation of state antitrust laws. (Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint 47,  Edwards v. National Milk Producers Federation, No. 3:11-cv-04766-JSW (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2012), ECF No. 110.) At the time that this Court was entertaining Petitioners' motion to compel in this action, a motion to certify the class was pending in Edwards. (Id. at ECF No. 232.)
Meanwhile on October 7, 2013, Petitioners served the subpoena duces tecum which is the subject of the instant dispute on Respondent California Dairies, Inc. ("CDI"). (Decl. of Elaine T. Byszewski ¶ 4, ECF No. 4 at 19.) Respondent objected to the subpoena and, after several attempts to meet and confer, the parties were unable to come to an agreement on production of the requested information. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 6, 7.) On February 13, 2014, Petitioners filed a motion to compel Respondent to comply with the subpoena in the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) A hearing on Petitioners' motion was held on March 26, 2014. (ECF No. 5.) The parties were allowed to submit supplemental briefing. Petitioner filed an amended motion to compel on April 18, 2014. (ECF No. 8.) Respondent filed an opposition on March 9, 2014, and Petitioner filed their reply on May 16, 2014. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.)
On June 2, 2014, this Court issued an order denying Petitioners' motion to compel. (ECF No. 11.) On June 18, 2014, Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 12.) Respondent filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration on July 2, 2014. (ECF No. 13.) Petitioners filed a reply on July 9, 2014. (ECF No. 14.)
As relevant here, Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for... (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;... or (6) any other reason that justifies relief." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b). Where none of these factors is present the motion is properly denied. Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry , 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order 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) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party "must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control...." Id . (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff 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, " and "why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion."
"A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law, " and it "may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation." Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH ...