Filed: Feb. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . On November 20, 2018, the undersigned issued an order denying plaintiff's second motion to compel discovery. ECF No. 66. On February 6, 2019, plaintiff filed a request for the undersigned to reconsider that order. ECF No. 70. Local Rule 303(b) states that "[r]ulings by Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen days calculated from the date of service of the ruling on the parties."
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . On November 20, 2018, the undersigned issued an order denying plaintiff's second motion to compel discovery. ECF No. 66. On February 6, 2019, plaintiff filed a request for the undersigned to reconsider that order. ECF No. 70. Local Rule 303(b) states that "[r]ulings by Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen days calculated from the date of service of the ruling on the parties." ..
More
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
On November 20, 2018, the undersigned issued an order denying plaintiff's second motion to compel discovery. ECF No. 66. On February 6, 2019, plaintiff filed a request for the undersigned to reconsider that order. ECF No. 70.
Local Rule 303(b) states that "[r]ulings by Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen days calculated from the date of service of the ruling on the parties." Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the November 20, 2018 order is therefore untimely.
Even if plaintiff's request for reconsideration were not untimely, it fails to set forth "what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon [the] prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion [for reconsideration]," as is required under the local rules. L.R. 230(j); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted) (noting that reconsideration is appropriate where there has been an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence has become available, or it is necessary to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice).
Like plaintiff's two prior motions to compel, both of which were denied by this court, the motion for reconsideration fails to reproduce or identify any specific discovery requests to which defendants failed to respond. See ECF No. 66 at 2-3 (explaining requirements for motion to compel). Defendants note in their opposition that they are "not aware of any outstanding discovery propounded to them by Plaintiff let alone any responses due by them." ECF No. 71 at 3. This statement confirms the court's previous supposition that plaintiff had not actually propounded discovery requests. See ECF No. 59 at 14, ECF No. 66 at 2. Because plaintiff has never identified any discovery requests he sent to defendants, or any responses to his discovery requests that he finds inadequate, he failed to provide any basis for an order compelling discovery. See ECF No. 59 at 14 (order denying plaintiff's first motion to compel); see also ECF No. 66 at 3 (order denying plaintiff's second motion to compel).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 70) is denied.
