Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01009/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01009-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant filed an unsolicited opposition to themotion. Absent direction from the court,

1

a non-moving party is not required to file any opposition to a motion for leave to move for

reconsideration. See CIVIL L.R. 7-9(d). The court did not request any opposition, and it has not

considered the opposition in ruling on Plaintiff’s motion. 

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TIMOTHY GENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEZ AMERICA, INC., 

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-1009 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PERMISSION TO FILE A MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

On or about July 25, 2007, Plaintiff submitted to the court a motion for permission to file a

motion for reconsideration of this court’s July 13, 2007 order. Based on the motion, and the file 1

herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. None of the reasons set forth

in Plaintiff’s motion warrant leave to move for reconsideration.

Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) requires a party requesting leave to move for reconsideration to show

one of the following circumstances:

“(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists

from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 210 Filed 08/06/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Plaintiff’s complaint of inadequate time is inconsistent with his prior representations that 2

he had already fully complied with this court’s orders. Moreover, at no time did Plaintiff give the court

any estimate of how much time it would take him to complete the subject discovery.

ORDER, page 2

which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of

reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or

law at the time of the interlocutory order; or

“(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time

of such order; or

“(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal

arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.”

Plaintiff fails to make any such showing. 

Plaintiff first complains that the court did not give him enough additional time to prepare his

opposition to Defendant’s most recent motion. Defendant properly noticed its motion. Plaintiff

failed to timely file any opposition. On the eve of the hearing, Plaintiff sought relief of court

claiming he had not personally received the moving papers when they were first delivered to him. 

Though Plaintiff’s showing of good cause was weak, the court nonetheless granted him an

opportunity to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff fails to state what facts or legal

authorities he would have submitted with his opposition if the court had given him a few days more

to prepare his opposition. Thus, there is no reason to believe a different result would have occurred

if the court had given Plaintiff even more additional time.

Plaintiff also complains that the April 6, 2007 and July 13, 2007 orders did not give him

adequate time to provide the discovery. However this argument ignores two facts. First, the 2

discovery was originally propounded on July 19, 2006, and Plaintiff has never made any showing of

justification for failing to timely provide the discovery in the first instance. Second, this court first

issued an order compelling the subject discovery on December 6, 2006, based on Plaintiff’s

agreement to provide the discovery (contained in his original opposition to the motion to compel). 

Defendant’s original motion requested an order that compelled Plaintiff to provide the discovery

within 10 calendar days after the then-scheduled hearing date of December 12, 2006. As the court

noted in its December 6, 2006 order, Plaintiff did not object to that proposed schedule in his

opposition to the original motion. If Plaintiff needed more than 10 days to complete the discovery,

he should have promptly informed the court of that fact after receiving the December 6, 2007 order. 

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 210 Filed 08/06/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

It may be that there will be evidence Plaintiff is barred from using at trial, or in a 3

dispositive motion, based on his failure to timely disclose it. However, as stated above, Plaintiff has had

more than enough time to comply with this court’s December 6, 2006 order compelling discovery.

Ultimately, any decision regarding whether a specific item of evidence is barred will be up to the Judge

presiding at such trial or motion.

ORDER, page 3

By July 13, 2007, Plaintiff had already had about a year since the discovery was first propounded,

over seven months since the December 6, 2007 order, and over three months since the April 6, 2007

order to complete the discovery.

Plaintiff further complains that Defendant served the July 13, 2007 order on him by express

mail, and that there was insufficient postage which purportedly caused further delay. Conspicuously

missing is any indication of the date on which either copy of that order (one was also mailed to

Plaintiff by the court) actually arrived in his post office box. And Plaintiff has not requested

additional time to comply based on any such delay.

Finally, Plaintiff complains that the monetary and issue sanctions are abusive, prohibited by

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (though he cites no legal authority for this argument), and

contrary to some undefined “normal discretionary practice” of the court. The court disagrees. The

monetary sanctions are based on just a portion of the fees Defendant incurred as a result of Plaintiff’s

repeated and continuing failure to provide discovery despite two prior orders compelling the

discovery. Although Defendant was forced to file three separate motions to compel, the court

awarded fees only for the most recent motion. Such sanctions are well within the scope of sanctions

authorized by Rule 37. The court has not ordered any “issue” sanctions at this time. And the selfexecuting evidentiary restrictions of 37(c)(1) will only apply to specific evidence if Plaintiff has not

disclosed that evidence and cannot show good cause for having failed to do so.3

Dated: 8/6/07

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 210 Filed 08/06/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER, page 4

Counsel automatically notified of this filing via the court’s Electronic Case Filing system.

copies mailed on 8/6/07 to:

Timothy Gens

Post Office Box 61029

Palo Alto, CA 94306

 /s/ Donna Kirchner for 

 CORINNE LEW

 Courtroom Deputy 

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 210 Filed 08/06/07 Page 4 of 4