Williams v. Navarro
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Lance Williams v. Navarro (2024-04-30) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Karen S. Crawford (author)
Analysis
The court considered plaintiff's ex parte motion, construed as a motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying part of a motion to compel discovery. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to identify newly discovered evidence, clear error, or a change in law, and failed to comply with local rules regarding affidavits.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reconsideration, which requires a showing of newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in law. The order explicitly states that the plaintiff failed to meet these requirements and failed to comply with the local rule (CivLR 7.1(i)) requiring an affidavit for new facts. The court also noted that the plaintiff was rehashing previous arguments. Therefore, the denial follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the nature of the motion (reconsideration), cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit standard for granting such motions, and notes the specific local rule compliance failure (missing affidavit). The court's conclusion that the plaintiff was merely rehashing old arguments supports the denial. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning provided for this procedural ruling.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 18cv1581-TWR-(KSC) CDCR #AG-2394, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 EX PARTE MOTION FOR v. RECONSIDERATION 14 O. NAVARRO; E. ESTRADA; J. MEJIA; 15 and A. SILVA, 16 Defendants. [Doc. No. 104.] 17 18 Before the Court is plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion, which the Court initially construed 19 as a Renewed Motion to Compel. [Doc. No. 104.] However, in effect, plaintiff’s Ex 20 Parte Motion seeks reconsideration of the Court’s March 19, 2021 Order Granting in Part 21 and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. [Doc. No. 104, referring to Doc. No. 22 97.] Plaintiff argues that the Court should issue an order requiring defendants to produce 23 documents responsive to his Document Request Nos. 8 and 13 (Set One). The Court’s 24 March 19, 2021 Order denied plaintiff’s request for an order requiring defendants to 25 produce any further documents responsive to Document Request Nos. 8 and 13. [Doc. 26 No. 97, at pp. 2-3; 4.] Defendants have filed an Opposition to plaintiff’s Ex Parte 27 Motion. [Doc. No. 106.] For the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court finds that 28 plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion must be DENIED. [Doc. No. 104.] 1 Background 2 The First Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges that defendant Navarro, 3 who was a control booth operator, refused to let plaintiff out of his cell to obtain his 4 “psych medication” and his migraine medication on three different dates: February 22, 5 2018; February 25, 2018; and March 10, 2018. [Doc. No. 95, at pp. 3-5.] The Complaint 6 also alleges that the remaining defendants, Mejia, A. Silva, R. Rodriguez; Castro; and 7 M. Rodriguez, ignored plaintiff’s calls for help and failed to intervene in the situation so 8 that he could get his medications. [Doc. No. 95, at pp. 3-5.] 9 Discussion 10 “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 11 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 12 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law. 13 [Citation omitted.] A motion for reconsideration ‘may not be used to raise arguments or 14 present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in 15 the litigation. [Citation omitted.]’” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH 16 & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). When seeking reconsideration, a party’s 17 moving papers must include an affidavit setting forth any new or different facts that did 18 not exist when the prior request for relief was made. CivLR 7.1(i). 19 In his Ex Parte Motion, plaintiff has not identified any unusual circumstances, 20 newly discovered evidence, or a change in the law that would justify reconsideration of 21 the Court’s prior ruling. Nor does plaintiff present any viable reason to indicate the 22 Court’s prior ruling was made in error. Plaintiff also did not submit the required affidavit 23 setting forth “what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which 24 did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.” CivLR 7.1(i). Rather, 25 plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion rehashes the same arguments he made in his original Motion 26 to Compel [Doc. No. 86]. In their Opposition, defendants thoroughly address each of 27 plaintiff’s arguments once again, and they offer convincing reasons why they should not 28 be compelled to provide plaintiff with further responses to Document Request Nos. 8 and 1 |} 13 (Set One). [Doc. No. 106, at pp. 1-8.] In addition to these reasons, the Court notes 2 || there are far less intrusive means available for plaintiff to discover the information he 3 seeks from defendants in these document requests. Based on a review of the arguments 4 || and information presented, the Court finds there is no convincing reason to reconsider or 5 ||modify the March 19, 2021 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion 6 || to Compel [Doc. No. 97]. 7 Conclusion 8 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for 9 || Reconsideration is DENIED. [Doc. No. 104.] 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ||Dated: May 26, 2021 A /; ) 12 WV GP “EEE B Hori. Karen S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28