Williams v. Navarro

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 AND RE- 14 SETTING PLAINTIFF’S DEADLINE O. NAVARRO; E. ESTRADA; J. MEJIA; 15 FOR OPPOSING DEFENDANTS’ and A. SILVA, MOTION FOR SUMMARY 16 Defendants. JUDGMENT 17 [Doc. No. 125.] 18 19 Before the Court is plaintiff’s recently filed Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration 20 that was docketed as an Opposition to defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. 21 No. 125.] In his Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 125], plaintiff requests 22 that the Court set aside its Order of August 9, 2021 [Doc. No. 122]. The Court’s Order of 23 August 9, 2021 [Doc. No. 122], denied plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Extension of the 24 Summary Judgment Deadline pursuant to Federal Rule 56(d) [Doc. No. 118]. Pursuant to 25 Federal Rule 56(d), plaintiff requested additional time to complete fact discovery, so that 26 he could locate evidence to oppose defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 27 118, at p. 1]. 28 / / / 1 Plaintiff’s current Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration is essentially a second 2 request for the Court to allow him additional time for discovery that he believes he needs 3 to oppose defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. No. 125.] Defendants filed 4 an Opposition to plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration. [Doc. No. 127.] For 5 the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court finds that plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for 6 Reconsideration must be DENIED. 7 “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 8 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 9 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law. 10 [Citation omitted.] A motion for reconsideration ‘may not be used to raise arguments or 11 present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in 12 the litigation. [Citation omitted.]’” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH 13 & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). When seeking reconsideration, a party’s 14 moving papers must include an affidavit setting forth any new or different facts that did 15 not exist when the prior request for relief was made. CivLR 7.1(i). 16 Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application does not seek reconsideration on the grounds of 17 newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in the law. Nor does 18 plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application present highly unusual circumstances. Therefore, 19 plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Reconsideration is subject to denial for these reasons 20 alone. 21 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration because he is “a layman” and did not understand 22 what information was needed when he previously filed his Rule 56(d) Motion. [Doc. No. 23 125, at p. 1.] He therefore filed his Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration to provide the 24 Court with additional information and to make a second request for additional time to 25 complete discovery. Plaintiff explains that he wants time for additional discovery, 26 because he hopes to elicit evidence about defendants’ knowledge at the time of the 27 incidents alleged in the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC). [Doc. No. 125, at 28 p. 1.] He speculates some or all the defendants have a history of the “same type of 1 |}conduct” alleged in the SAC, and he therefore believes discovery about defendants’ prior 2 || conduct will show their actions or inactions at the time of the incidents alleged in the 3 ||SAC were knowing. Plaintiff also wants to be able to prove defendants knew he had 4 || constitutional rights and knew he had a serious medical need at the time of the alleged 5 ||incidents. [Doc. No. 125, at pp. 1-2.] Plaintiff believes evidence of defendants’ 6 || knowledge is essential based on the arguments made by defendants in their Motion for 7 Summary Judgment. [Doc. No. 125, at p. 2.] However, plaintiff misreads defendants’ 8 || Motion for Summary Judgment. 9 As explained in their Opposition to plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for 10 || Reconsideration, plaintiff has not and cannot show that discovery on the issue of 11 || defendants’ knowledge is essential to oppose defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 12 |/or that discovery on the issue of defendants’ knowledge would preclude summary 13 ||judgment. This is because defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment raises legal rather 14 factual issues. The arguments in their Motion assume that the facts as alleged in 15 || plaintiff's SAC are true. In other words, defendants argue they are entitled to summary 16 ||judgment in their favor even if plaintiff's factual allegations in the SAC are true. 17 || Additional discovery on the issue of defendants’ knowledge at this late date in the 18 || proceeding would therefore be futile. 19 Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. [Doc. 20 || No. 125.] Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to defendants’ Motion for Summary 21 || Judgment no later than October 15, 2021. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||Dated: September 21, 2021 Mh Uf; 24 WU LA SSS 5 Hori. Karen S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28