United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES
Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration
16, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the Motion to Compel filed by Defendant City
of Newport Beach (“Defendant”) and granting
Defendant's request for expenses incurred in bringing the
Motion to Compel in the sum of $1, 320.00. ECF Docket No.
(“Dkt.”) 85. On May 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of the award of expenses. Dkt. 90.
For the reasons set forth below, (a) Plaintiff's Motion
is GRANTED, and (b) upon reconsideration, the Court reduces
the award of expenses to the sum of $100.00 to be paid to
Defendant City of Newport Beach no later than sixty (60) days
from the date of this Order.
December 20, 2016, Defendant served Plaintiff Ivin Mood
(“Plaintiff”) with Requests for Production of
Documents and Interrogatories. Dkt. 66-1, Declaration of
Allen Christiansen, ¶¶ 2-3, Exs. A, B. Plaintiff
did not serve responses to the discovery requests.
Id. ¶ 5.
February 23, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel
Responses to Requests for Production and Special
Interrogatories (“Motion”). Dkt. 66, MTC.
March 20, 2017, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to
Compel Plaintiff to respond to Requests for Production and
Special Interrogatories within ten days, i.e. by
March 30, 2017. Dkt. 72.
March 29, 2017, Defendant received Responses to its Requests
for Production and Special Interrogatories. See Dkt.
73-2, Declaration of Allen Christiansen in support of Motion
(“Christiansen Decl.”), Ex. A. The same day,
Defendant's counsel sent Plaintiff a letter explaining
how Plaintiff's Responses were deficient and requesting a
meet and confer conference pursuant to Local Rule 37-1.
Id. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant's
March 29, 2017 request to meet and confer. Id.
April 12, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel seeking to
compel further responses to certain requests for production
and interrogatories. Dkt. 73. On May 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed
“Supplemental Reponses to City of Newport Beach Request
for Production of Documents and Further Responses to Special
Interrogatories.” Dkt. 82.
16, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendant's Motion to Compel and awarded Defendant its
reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the Motion to Compel
in the sum of $1, 320.00. Dkt. 85. The Court found Plaintiff
had not provided any explanation that would make his failure
to properly respond to the discovery requests substantially
justified, and there were no circumstances that would make an
award of expenses unjust. Id. Hence, the Court found
an award pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(a)(5)(A) and (C) would be appropriate. Id. In
addition, the Court found sanctions appropriate pursuant to
Local Rule 37-4 for Plaintiff's failure to engage in meet
and confer discussions in good faith. Id.
25, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's award of expenses arguing
he is indigent and unable to pay. Dkt. 90. On June 1, 2017,
Defendant filed an Opposition. Dkt. 93. On June 14, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a Reply. Dkt. 104.
Rule 7-18 provides
A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion
may be made only on the grounds of (a) a material difference
in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such
decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could
not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration
at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new
material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of
such decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to
consider material facts presented to the Court before such
decision. No ...