Rangel v. Williams

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 JONATHAN RANGEL, Case No. 21-cv-00278-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; SETTING 9 v. DEADLINES FOR BRIEFING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND 10 V. WILLIAMS, et al., SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 74

12 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, has filed a motion for 13 reconsideration of the order denying his motion to strike his deposition in order to prevent a 14 “manifest injustice.” (ECF Nos. 72, 74.) 15 Where the court's ruling has not resulted in a final judgment or order, reconsideration of 16 the ruling may be sought under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which 17 provides that any order which does not terminate the action is subject to revision at any time 18 before the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the 19 district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the 20 initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” 21 School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 22 In the Northern District of California, no motion for reconsideration may be brought 23 without leave of court. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, the moving party must 24 specifically show: (1) that at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law 25 exists from that which was presented to the court before entry of the interlocutory order for which 26 the reconsideration is sought, and that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying 27 1 emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a 2 manifest failure by the court to consider material facts which were presented to the court before 3 such interlocutory order. 4 Plaintiff argues that his deposition should be stricken because Defendants did not make 5 the changes he wanted to his transcript. The Court is aware of no authority that Defendants have a 6 legal obligation to make such changes. Moreover, the Court has a copy of Plaintiff's changes as 7 well as the transcript (ECF No. 76-1), and Plaintiff may assert any further changes he believes are 8 warranted in his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 76-1.) Accordingly, 9 the Court finds no grounds for reconsideration of the order denying his motion to strike the 10 deposition, and the motion for reconsideration is DENED. 11 Defendants shall file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel on or before March 29, 12 2023. Plaintiff shall file a reply brief on or before April 12, 2023. The deadline for his opposition 5 13 to the summary judgment is extended to, and including May 12, 2023. The reply brief is due on or S 14 || before May 26, 2023. 3 15 This order disposes of docket number 74. 5 Dated: March 22, 2023

19 ne JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28