United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DENYING CERTIFICATION OF
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW RE: DKT. NO. 29
EDWARD
J. DAVILA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On
December 19, 2019, this Court granted Defendant Oak Creek
Investments' motion for administrative relief and ordered
Plaintiff to produce to Defendant by December 31,
2019 billing information in anticipation of the
Parties' upcoming January 28, 2020 mediation session.
Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Administrative
Relief, Dkt. 29. Plaintiff argues that leave to file a motion
for reconsideration should be granted because the controlling
law on this matter has changed since the order granting
relief was entered. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks
interlocutory review. For the foregoing reasons, the Court
DENIES these requests.
I.
Motion for Reconsideration
Reconsideration
of a final judgment, order, or proceeding is appropriate if
(1) at the time of the motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration, a material difference in fact or law exists
from that which was presented to the Court before entry of
the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought;
(2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision
was manifestly unjust; or (3) if new material facts emerge or
a material change of law occurs after the time of the
interlocutory order. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Absent these
three things, “a motion for reconsideration should not
be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances.”
Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir.
2003) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of
Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)).
Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used
sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of
judicial resources.” Id. (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff
argues that a material difference in law exists because
General Order 56 was recently amended. The amended order is
controlling in this case. General Order 56(6) formerly
provided:
If the parties reach a tentative agreement on injunctive
relief, plaintiff shall forthwith provide defendant with a
statement of costs and attorney's fees incurred to date,
and make a demand for settlement of the case in its entirety
(including any additional damages not included in the Rule
26(a) disclosures). Plaintiff should not require execution of
a formal agreement regarding injunctive relief as a
precondition to providing defendant with the statement of
costs and attorney's fees, and additional damages. If
requested by defendant, plaintiff should provide
documentation and support for its attorney's fees similar
to what an attorney would provide in a billing statement to a
client.
(emphasis added).
The
Court held that this required Plaintiff to provide Defendant
with “documentation and support” for
attorneys' fees and costs. See Dkt. 29 at 4. The
Court held that attorney-client privilege was not violated as
Plaintiff could “frame the task descriptions at a high
level.” Id. at 6.
Amended
General Order 56(5) provides:
Whenever plaintiff makes a monetary demand, defendant may
request and plaintiff then promptly shall provide an
itemization of costs, an overall summary of the major
categories of work performed, the total number of hours each
time keeper spent on each category of work, and each time
keeper's billing rate. If plaintiff prefers,
plaintiff may instead provide complete, detailed time
records (redacted, if necessary, for attorney-client
privilege and work product).
(emphasis added).
The
provisions are nearly identical. Both require a plaintiff to
promptly provide an itemization of costs and documentation
supporting any demand of attorney's fees and costs.
Hence, a material change in law does not exist. Moreover,
Plaintiff does not present any new information that the Court
did not already consider when reaching the conclusion that
the disclosure of the requested billing information could be
consistent with California law governing attorney-client
privilege. Accordingly, because no “material change of
law or facts” exists, Plaintiff's motion for leave
to file a motion for reconsideration is
DENIED.
II.
Interlocutory Appeal
In the
alternative, Plaintiff requests certification of the
Court's December 2019 Order for interlocutory review. The
Court's December 2019 Order does not meet the standards
set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), requiring a
“controlling question of law” that “may
materially advance the ultimate termination of ...