ORDER

MARK E. FORD, Magistrate Judge.

On this 3rd day of April 2019, there comes on for consideration Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Scheduling Evidentiary Hearing and supporting brief (ECF Nos. 37 & 38) and Petitioner's Response (ECF No. 41).

In support of her motion, Respondent reiterates arguments previously presented to the Court in her response to Hartman's petition (ECF No. 14) and argues that she "seeks the Court's reconsideration of the order because Hartman's [ineffective assistance of counsel] claim will not be advanced by an evidentiary hearing." (ECF No. 37, p. 2).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for this type of motion, and Respondent offers no other authority for her motion. On September 20, 2018, the Court initially scheduled an evidentiary hearing to be held on January 15, 2019 (ECF No. 21), and on October 11, 2018 the evidentiary hearing was rescheduled to its current setting on April 30, 2019 (ECF No. 27). Since that time subpoenas have issued, and notices of appearance were filed on behalf of counsel for Respondent. Six months have passed since the initial scheduling of the hearing, and Respondent filed the instant motion only one month prior to the hearing date.

The Court previously considered Respondent's arguments in the instant motion, and it further finds the motion is not timely. For these reasons, the Court finds Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Scheduling Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 37) should be and hereby is DENIED.