United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO STAY IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION ECF NO. 133, 135, 143, 145
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Currently pending in this action are motions filed by Plaintiff Paul Weldon requesting the Court to stay the imposition of $715.00 in monetary sanctions and to reconsider the Court's March 6, 2015 order granting Defendant's motion to compel. (ECF Nos. 133, 135, 143, 145.)
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's March 6, 2015 order granting Defendant's motion to compel. Defendant's motion to compel arose from Plaintiff's uncooperative behavior at his own deposition. Defendant sought to compel Plaintiff to respond to their deposition questions. The Court granted the motion to compel and ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant $715.00 in sanctions for wasting Defendant's time during the deposition.
The Court notes that Plaintiff filed two motions on March 30, 2015. (ECF Nos. 133, 135.) These motions were noticed to be heard on April 29, 2015 at 9:30 a.m., but Plaintiff did not file any memorandum of points and authorities along with his motions. Plaintiff only filed a two page notice of his motion without any accompanying brief setting forth the factual or legal basis of his motions.
Without prompting from the Court, Plaintiff re-filed identically titled motions on April 10, 2015. (ECF Nos. 143, 145.) These motions were noticed to be heard on May 8, 2015 at 1:30 p.m., which the Court later rescheduled to May 13, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with the Court's standard law and motion schedule. The motions filed on April 10 did include accompanying memoranda of points and authorities.
On April 21, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, granting judgment in favor of Defendants on all claims in this action. (ECF No. 148.) Accordingly, judgment has been entered in favor of Defendants on the substantive claims raised by Plaintiff in his complaint. However, the pending motions to stay imposition of the monetary sanctions and for reconsideration of the order granting the motion to compel and imposing the same monetary sanctions remain outstanding.
The Court notes that, on April 23, 2015, counsel for Defendant John Conlee, attorney Erica Camarena, filed a letter informing the Court that Plaintiff purported to pay the $715.00 in monetary sanctions, but used cashier's checks addressed to the District Court, rather than to Defendant John Conlee or the City of Fresno. Ms. Camarena informs the Court that she is unsure whether these checks can be cashed by Defendant in the manner that they were written out.
Given Plaintiff's actions, it is unclear whether he intends to pursue his outstanding motions to stay and motions for reconsideration. In the interest of providing final closure to this action, the Court addresses the merits of Plaintiff's motions herein.
LEGAL STANDARDS FOR MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
Local Rule 230(j) states that a motion for reconsideration must include:
... an affidavit or brief, as appropriate, setting forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding each motion for which ...