Stribling v. Mott, 2:16-cv-0400 MCE CKD P. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20181019i59
Visitors: 13
Filed: Oct. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 16, 2018
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . On September 17, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed August 29, 2018, granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's February 12, 2018 motion to compel (ECF No. 75). ECF No. 77. Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state "what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other g
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . On September 17, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed August 29, 2018, granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's February 12, 2018 motion to compel (ECF No. 75). ECF No. 77. Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state "what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other gr..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.
On September 17, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed August 29, 2018, granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's February 12, 2018 motion to compel (ECF No. 75). ECF No. 77. Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state "what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion." L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4). Plaintiff's only argument is that he believes the magistrate judge ignored his reply in support of his motion to compel. ECF No. 77. Plaintiff does not put forth any new facts or circumstances and his motion does not meet the requirements for a motion for reconsideration or warrant a different outcome.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 77) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
