Opinion
No. C05-1614MJP.
August 9, 2007
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Lexington's motion for reconsideration of the Court's July 24, 2007, order denying Swanson's motion for in camera review and to compel, but granting in part Swanson's alternative request to exclude, granting motion to quash, and denying Lexington's motion for a protective order. (Dkt. No. 294.)
In this district, motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The Court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Local Civil Rule 7(h). Lexington requests that the Court "clarify" that its July 24 Order was meant to preclude both parties from referencing the issue of coverage advice at trial. The Court's previous order does not need clarification. Because the prior order was clear and because Lexington has not shown manifest error or new facts or legal authority, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.