USA v. Warren
Filing
103
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 11/9/11 ORDERING that defendant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
13
vs.
DAVID WARREN,
Defendant.
ORDER
/
14
15
No. CIV 2:99-cv-814-JAM-JFM
On July 28, 2011, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s motion to compel post-
16
judgment discovery and ordered defendant to supplement his responses to plaintiff’s discovery
17
requests within thirty days of the date of the order. On August 12, 2011, defendant filed
18
objections to the order, which the court construes as a motion for reconsideration. On August
19
22, 2011, plaintiff filed a response.
20
A basic principle of federal practice is that courts generally refuse to reopen
21
decided matters. Magnesystems, Inc. v. Nikken, 933 F. Supp. 944, 948 (C.D. Cal. 1996).
22
Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and
23
conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). A
24
reconsideration motion “should not be granted absent highly unusual circumstances.” McDowell
25
v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1059 (1989). A
26
reconsideration motion “is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new
1
1
theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a ‘second bite at the apple.’”
2
See Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2nd Cir. 1998). “A party seeking
3
reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and
4
recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original
5
decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134
6
F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal citations omitted). “To succeed, a party must
7
set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior
8
decision.” Id. at 1131.
9
Reconsideration is appropriate if the court: (1) is presented with newly discovered
10
evidence; (2) has committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) is
11
presented with an intervening change in controlling law. School District 1J, Multnomah County
12
v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994). There
13
may be other highly unusual circumstances warranting reconsideration. Id. at 1263. Denial of
14
reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. at 1262.
15
A motion for reconsideration is restricted and serves “a limited function: to
16
correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Publisher’s
17
Resource, Inc. v. Walker Davis Publications, Inc., 762 F.2d 557, 561 (7th Cir. 1985) (quoting
18
Keene Corp. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 561 F. Supp. 656, 665-66 (N.D. Ill. 1982), aff'd,
19
736 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1984) (italics in original)); see Novato Fire Protection Dist. v. United
20
States, 181 F.3d 1135, 1142, n.6 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1129 (2000).
21
Reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when
22
they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate
23
of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Reconsideration should not be used “to argue new
24
facts or issues that inexcusably were not presented to the court in the matter previously decided.”
25
See Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990). Under this court’s
26
Local Rule 230(j), a party seeking reconsideration must demonstrate “what new or different facts
2
1
or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior
2
motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion” and “why the facts or circumstances were
3
not shown at the time of the prior motion.”
4
With these standards in mind, the court turns to defendant’s objections to the July
5
28, 2011 order. Review of the objections convinces the court that defendant is merely
6
attempting to relitigate the motion to compel using arguments first presented in his May 16, 2011
7
opposition, defendant has not shown that the court’s July 28, 2011 order is clearly erroneous or
8
manifestly unjust, and defendant fails to show that there has been an intervening change in
9
controlling law that warrants reconsideration.
10
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion for
11
reconsideration is denied.
12
DATED: November 9, 2011.
13
14
15
16
/014;usa0814.recons
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
