ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 33

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., District Judge.

Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that the Court deny Defendants' request for an extension of time to file their reply in support of their summary judgment motion. Dkt. No. 33. He argues that the Court erred in granting Defendants' request for an extension of time without first allowing Plaintiff to oppose the request. The Court has already granted the extension of time, Dkt. No. 30, so the Court construes Plaintiff's motion as a request that the Court grant him leave to file a motion seeking reconsideration of the order granting an extension of time. See N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9(a) (motions for consideration may not be filed without leave of court).

In seeking leave to file a motion of reconsideration, the moving party must show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion and one of the following: there has been a material change in fact or law since the entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought that was unknown to the moving party at the time of the interlocutory order; the emergence of new material facts or a change of law since the entry of the order; or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before the order was entered. See N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9(b). Plaintiff has not met the standard for bringing a motion for reconsideration as set forth in Local Rule 7-9. Moreover, the grant or denial of an extension of time to file dispositive briefing is well within the broad discretion granted to district courts to manage their dockets. Cf. Sherman v. U.S., 801 F.2d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff's request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order granting Defendants an extension of time to file their reply brief is DENIED. Dkt. No. 33.1

This order terminates Dkt. No. 33.

IT IS SO ORDERED.