United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
For Elgin K. Cox, Plaintiff: Laurence Fred Padway, LEAD ATTORNEY, Gayle G. Codiga, Law Offices of Laurence F. Padway, Alameda, CA.
For Allin Corporation Plan, Defendant: Anna M. Martin, LEAD ATTORNEY, Rimac & Martin, P.C., San Francisco, CA.
For UNUM Life Insurance Company of America, Defendant: Anna M. Martin, Rimac & Martin, P.C., San Francisco, CA.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RAISE ONE ADDITIONAL POINT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, United States District Judge.
On September 30, 2014, the Court issued its Order adjudicating the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and referring the parties for a mandatory settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu (" Magistrate"). Dkt. 98. On October 20, 2014--before the settlement conference was scheduled to take place--Defendants filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 101. On October 30, 2014, Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 109.
On November 7, 2014, the parties informed the Court that, from their perspective, it would be pointless to proceed with the settlement conference, which resulted in its cancellation by the Magistrate. Dkt. 110, 111. In view of that development, the Court issued a briefing schedule directing the parties to file their respective responses to the other's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration by December 1, 2014. Dkt. 112. That deadline was twice extended based on the parties' stipulated requests. Dkt. 114, 116. The parties filed their respective responses on December 11, 2014. Dkt. 117, 118. Both motions are now under submission.
On December 30, 2014, Defendants submitted the instant Motion for Leave to Raise One Additional Point in Support of Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. 119. Local Rule 7-9, which governs motions for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, specifies that: " The moving party must specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion." Civ. L.R. 7-1(b) (emphasis added). No such showing has been made. Defendants readily admit that their " additional point" could and should have been raised in their original motion filed on October 20, 2014, but that " it just occurred [to them]" to make it at this juncture. Id. at 1:24. Moreover, permitting Defendants to, in effect, supplement their motion two months after the fact would be prejudicial to Plaintiff, since briefing on the pending motions is now closed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants' Motion for Leave to Raise One Additional Point in ...