ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 147

MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Magistrate Judge.

Civil Local Rule 7-9 allows a party to file a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any interlocutory order. As is relevant here, "[t]he moving party must specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion, and . . . [t]he emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order[.]" Civ. L.R. 79-(b)(2).

Defendants City of Union City and Officer Christopher Figueiredo seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's April 2016 Order denying Officer Figueiredo qualified immunity. Mot., Dkt. No. 147; see Order re: Mot. for Summ. J., Dkt. No. 111. Defendants' Motion is based on the Supreme Court's ruling in White v. Pauly, 137 S.Ct. 548 (2017), which Defendants contend constitutes new law regarding qualified immunity. Mot. at 4-6.

The Court cannot find Defendants acted diligently. Defendants argue their Motion is timely because it was unknown whether Plaintiff Gary Castro would prosecute his case pro se upon the withdrawal of his former counsel. Id. at 4; see Dkt. No. 125 (Nov. 22, 2016 order granting motion to withdraw). The Court did not stay this case upon the withdrawal of Plaintiff's counsel. Thus, while Defendants may have considered the action to be in "suspended animation" (Mot. at 4), nothing prevented Defendants from seeking reconsideration as early as January 2017, when the Supreme Court issued its decision in White.1 Because Defendants waited more than one year to request leave to file the motion for reconsideration, the Court DENIES the Motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.