Opinion
CASE NO. C10-5333BHS.
July 6, 2011
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Paul Hiatt's ("Hiatt") motions for reconsideration (Dkt. 89 94) and motion for extension of time (Dkt. 90). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motions and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motions for the reasons stated herein.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 11, 2010, the Government filed the complaint in this action seeking to reduce federal tax assessments to judgment and foreclose federal tax liens against Hiatt and Marileen J. McMahon ("McMahon"). Dkt. 1.
On June 14, 2011, Hiatt filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order dismissing his counterclaims (Dkt. 89) and a motion for extension of time to file his answer to the Government's amended complaint (Dkt. 90). On June 15, 2011, the Government responded to the motion for extension of time and does not object to a short extension. Dkt. 91.
On June 21, 2011, Hiatt filed his answer. Dkt. 93.
On June 28, 2011, Hiatt filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court order granting the Government's motion for a protective order (Dkt. 79). Dkt. 94.
On June 30, 2011, McMahon filed her answer. Dkt. 95
II. DISCUSSION
A. Extension of Time
The Government does not object to a short extension of time for Hiatt and McMahon to file their answers and both parties have answered. Therefore, the Court denies Hiatt's motion for an extension of time as moot.
B. Reconsideration
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h), which provides as follows:
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 Rule CR 7(h)(1).
In this case, Hiatt has filed two motions for reconsideration. His first motion requests that the Court reconsider the dismissal of his counterclaims against the Government. Dkt. 89. Hiatt's recently filed answer, however, includes the counterclaims against the Government. See Dkt. 93. Therefore, the Court denies this motion as moot.
Hiatt's other motion requests reconsideration of the Court's order granting the Government's motion for a protective order to prevent Hiatt from deposing a former IRS agent, a current IRS agent, and counsel of record (Dkt. 79 at 5). Dkt. 94. Hiatt has failed to show that the Court's order involved a manifest error of law. Hiatt merely disagrees with the Court's decision and expounds on his contention that the Government is continuing to perpetuate a fraud against him by pursuing this action to reduce his federal tax assessment to judgment. Therefore, the Court denies Hiatt's motion because it is without merit.
III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Hiatt's motions for reconsideration (Dkt. 89 94) and motion for extension of time (Dkt. 90) are DENIED.