Opinion
CV-21-00047-TUC-RM
10-31-2022
Devin Andrich, Plaintiff, v. Courtney R Glynn, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Honorable Rosemary Marquez, United States District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order granting Defendant Gann a six-day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. (Doc. 92.) The Order allows Defendant until November 2, 2022 to complete its responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests because Defendant recently acquired new counsel. (Doc. 91.)
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Order, arguing that (1) Defendant Gann should have requested the extension of time sooner; (2) Defendant Gann misrepresented the basis for the extension and the true basis was defense counsel's inability to contact Defendant Gann; and (3) the deadline of November 2 does not allow Plaintiff to review the discovery responses before his scheduled deposition of Defendant Gann on November 4, 2022. (Doc. 92.) Plaintiff avers that the November 4, 2022 deposition deadline conflicts with his filing deadline in another case. (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff further avers that he would not object to the November 2 deadline if the corresponding discovery deadlines were also extended to allow him additional time to depose Defendant Gann if necessary. (Id. at 13-14.) He avers that Defendant has not stipulated to an extension of remaining deadlines; however, he has not moved for such an extension. (Id. at 14)
The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Any such motion shall point out with specificity the matters that the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, any new matters being brought to the Court's attention for the first time and the reasons they were not presented earlier, and any specific modifications being sought in the Court's Order. No motion for reconsideration of an Order may repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in the Order. Failure to comply with this subsection may be grounds for denial of the motion.LRCiv 7.2(g)(1).
“Manifest injustice requires at least a clear and certain prejudice to the moving party that is fundamentally unfair in light of governing law” and “is not meant to allow a disappointed litigant to attempt to persuade the court to change its mind.” Raya v. Calbiotech, No. 3:18-CV-2643-WQH-AHG, 2019 WL 11504688, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2019) (internal citations omitted).
Having reviewed the facts and arguments Plaintiff presents in his Motion for Reconsideration, the Court does not find a basis to grant reconsideration of its prior Order. First, although Plaintiff avers that Defendant Gann misrepresented the basis for the requested extension, the attached emails provided by Plaintiff provide support for, and do not detract from, Defendant's position. (See Doc. 92-6.) Second, the deadline of November 2 is two days before the scheduled deposition of Defendant Gann on November 4, 2022, and Plaintiff has not provided a sufficient reason why he cannot review the responses in that timeframe. A filing deadline in another case, of which Plaintiff has presumably been aware for some time, does not create prejudice in this case.
Third, Plaintiff avers that he would not object to the November 2 deadline if the corresponding discovery deadlines were extended in order to allow him additional time to depose Defendant Gann, if it became necessary. Plaintiff has not moved for an extension of those deadlines but may do so if needed, regardless of Defendant's willingness to stipulate. Given the foregoing, the Court does not find that manifest error or injustice will result from its prior Order, and the Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 92) is denied.