(PC) Hill v. Newsom

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHAN HILL, No. 2:19-cv-1680-DJC-AC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed Objections to this Court’s Order overruling his objections to 18 the Magistrate Judge’s order directing him to sit for a deposition on May 21, 2025. 19 (ECF No. 158.) Therein, Plaintiff urges the Court to reconsider its Order because, as 20 he previously argued, he did not receive proper notice of his earlier February 13, 21 2025, deposition which he contends requires the Court to cancel his May 21, 2025, 22 deposition. (Id.) 23 The Court will construe Plaintiff’s Objections as a Motion for Reconsideration. A 24 district court has inherent power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an order for 25 sufficient cause. United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000); see also 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (authorizing a district court to revise an interlocutory order); E.D. 27 Cal. L.R. 230(j) (authorizing motions for reconsideration of “any motion [that] has been 28 granted or denied in whole or in part”). Generally, reconsideration is appropriate only 1 when controlling law has changed, new evidence has become available, or when 2 necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 3 Multnomah Cnty., Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 4 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for 5 parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. See Kona Enters., 6 Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 1990). Motions to reconsider are 7 also “not vehicles permitting the unsuccessful party to ‘rehash’ arguments previously 8 presented.” United States v. Navarro, 972 F. Supp. 1296, 1299 (E.D. Cal. 1997), rev'd 9 on other grounds, 160 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 1998). Ultimately, a party seeking 10 reconsideration must show “more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and 11 recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering 12 its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” United States v. 13 Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quotations 14 omitted). 15 Reconsideration is not warranted here, as Plaintiff has not cited a change in 16 controlling law, presented new evidence, or demonstrated any clear error on the 17 Court’s part. Plaintiff instead recycles his argument that he did not receive sufficient 18 notice of the February 13, 2025, deposition before it occurred. (ECF No. 158.) 19 However, as this Court previously reasoned, Plaintiff’s objections to this allegedly 20 insufficient notice are now moot because Plaintiff attended the February 13, 2025, 21 deposition. (See ECF No. 156 at 1–2.) Further, this Court still fails to see how the 22 alleged defects with the notice for Plaintiff’s earlier February 13, 2025, deposition 23 impact his later deposition on May 21, 2025. (Id. at 2.) Accordingly, the Court 24 declines to reconsider its Order. 25 Further, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Stay these proceedings for 120 days while 26 he appeals the Court’s orders and seeks legal counsel. (ECF No. 157.) A district 27 court’s decision to grant or deny a stay is a matter of discretion. Dependable Highway 28 1 | Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has 2 || provided no compelling reason here to stay this case, and this request will be denied. 3 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 158) are OVERRULED; 5 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (ECF No. 157) is DENIED; and 6 3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for all further pretrial 7 proceedings. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | Dated: _May 28, 2025 “Daal J CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta " UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 | DJC4 -Hill1 9cv1680.MotReconsideration 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28