Rather, “a court should generally leave a previous decision undisturbed absent a showing that it either represented clear error or would work a manifest injustice.” Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F.Supp.2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988)). And ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is in the “sound discretion” of the district court.
(citing Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmBH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009)); United States v. Lewis, 2018 WL 1014172, at *2 (D. Or. 2018) (denying reconsideration of interlocutory order because "a motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation") (quoting Kona, 228 F.3d at 883) (emphasis in original); HM Electronics, Inc. v. R.F. Technologies, Inc., 2015 WL 11234136, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2015) ("To determine the merits of a request to reconsider an interlocutory order, the court applies the standard required under a Rule 59(e) reconsideration motion.") (citing Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F. Supp. 2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003)); Rich v. TASER Intern., Inc., 917 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1094 (D. Nev. 2013) (holding reconsideration of a non-final order may be appropriate if the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or there has been an intervening change in controlling law).