United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER DENYING INTERVENOR'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF SANCTIONS [ECF No. 138]
Barbara L. Major United States Magistrate Judqe
before the Court is Intervener's June 29, 2017
nEX PARTE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
SANCTIONS" [ECF No. 138 ("Mot.")],
Defendants' July 1, 2017 opposition to the motion [ECF
No. 139 ("Oppo.")], Intervener's July 2, 2017
reply [ECF No. 140 ("Reply")], and Defendants'
July 5, 2017 supplemental opposition to the motion [ECF No.
142 ("Supp. Oppo.")]. For the reasons set forth below,
Intervener's motion is DENIED.
12, 2017, the Court issued an "ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL
DEPOSITIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS." ECF No. 127. Defendants
sought an order from the Court compelling Intervenor to
appear for his deposition and to pay $2, 992.50 in sanctions
to Defendants. ECF No. 97-1 at 17. The Court found that
Defendants properly and timely served the notice for
Intervener's deposition. While Defendants should have
contacted Intervenor to coordinate the scheduling of
Intervener's deposition, Defendants repeatedly advised
Intervenor that they were willing to reschedule his
deposition to a convenient date. Intervenor, on the other
hand, refused to work with Defendants to find a new date.
This behavior is unacceptable. It only would have taken
Intervenor a few minutes to look at his calendar and send
defense counsel a list of dates he was available to be
deposed, on the condition that defense counsel obtain court
approval for the deposition to occur after the close of
discovery. Intervener's refusal to coordinate with
defense counsel and his insistence that Defendants file the
instant motion to compel warrants the imposition of
127 at 8-9.
1, 2017, the parties filed a "JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND
DEADLINES FROM COURT'S RECENT ORDERS." ECF No. 131.
The parties sought in part, to continue the June 2, 2017
deadline for Intervenor to reimburse defense counsel in the
amount of $2, 992.50 by thirty days, and the June 9, 2017
deadline for Intervenor to file a declaration verifying the
payment by thirty days. Id., at 1-2. The Court granted the
parties' motion on June 2, 2017 and ordered Intervenor to
pay his sanctions on or before July 3, 2017. ECF No. 132.
29, 2017, Intervenor filed the instant motion. Mot.
5, 2017, Intervenor filed a Declaration stating that on
"July 3, 2017, [he] mailed a personal check in the
amount of $2, 992.50 to defense counsel's office
address" in accordance with the Court's orders. ECF
No. 141. at 1-2. On the same day, Defendants filed a
SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR'S EX PARTE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SANCTIONS. Supp. Oppo.
to Local Rule 7.l(i)(1), a party may apply for
reconsideration "[w]henever any motion or any
application or petition for any order or other relief has
been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in
part. . . ." S.D. Cal. Civ.L.R. 7.l(i)(1). The party
seeking reconsideration must show "what new or different
facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not
exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application."
Id., Local Rule 7.l(i)(2) permits motions for reconsideration
within "twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of the
ruling, order or judgment sought to be reconsidered."
Additionally, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e), a party must file a "motion to alter or amend a
judgment... no later than 28 days after the entry of the
judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
requests that the Court "reconsider the propriety of the
factual basis for the Court's recent sanctions
award" and amend or rescind the award because the
premise of the Court's rationale does not justify
sanctions, at least in the amount assessed. Mot. at 2.
Intervenor argues that motion practice regarding his
deposition could not have been avoided regardless of what he
did or did not do and that it would have been premature of
Intervenor to agree to a new deposition date until Defendants
secured permission from the Court to take his deposition
after the close of discovery. Id. Intervenor also
argues that the sanctions are unfair because Defendants have
committed "many un-sanctioned violations of clear,
unequivocal rules of court" and not been sanctioned.
Id. at 6.
object to Intervener's motion because it is untimely and
fails to include an affidavit or certified statement
disclosing any new or different facts supporting the motion.
Oppo. at 2. Defendants further object that Intervenor has not
presented any basis for ex parte relief and that
Intervenor could have filed a duly noticed motion.
Id., at 3. Defendants contend that the Court
properly awarded sanctions. Id. at 3-4. Finally,
Defendants object to Intervener's "repeated and
false statements that Defendants have violated the
Court['s] Order." Supp. Oppo. at 3.
replies that he "delayed requesting reconsideration
because until a few days ago, discovery motions requesting
additional sanctions were still pending, and the sanctions at
issue are due for payment on July 3, 2017" and that
"nothing Intervenor did (or failed to do) actually
'impeded, delayed, or frustrated the fair ...