Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-04803/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-04803-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 330
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers' Liability
Cause of Action: 45:51 Railways: Fed. Employer's Liability Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dalonno C. Johnson (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against his employer Union Pacific 

Railroad Company (“Defendant”), alleging that Defendant was liable under federal law for 

injuries Plaintiff sustained while working as a railroad conductor. (Doc. 18) On September 

20, 2019, Defendant filed notice of Plaintiff’s deposition scheduled for October 10, 2019.

(Doc. 53) Plaintiff failed to appear for the deposition. (Doc. 60 at 3-4) On October 15, 

2019, Plaintiff and Defendant filed a Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute, arguing 

whether or not sanctions should be imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the 

deposition. (Doc. 60) The Court set a hearing on the discovery dispute for November 26, 

2019 at 9:00 a.m. (Doc. 61) Plaintiff again failed to appear for the hearing. (Doc. 70) On 

November 27, 2019, the Court issued an Order dismissing the case for lack of prosecution. 

(Doc. 71) Approximately one month later, on December 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion 

for Reconsideration. (Doc. 75) 

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g) states, “[a]bsent good cause shown, any motion 

for reconsideration shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of the filing 

Dalonno C. Johnson,

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Union Pacific Railroad Company,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-17-04803-PHX-SPL

ORDER

Case 2:17-cv-04803-SPL Document 79 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 2
2

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

of the Order that is the subject of the motion.” Moreover, reconsideration is highly 

disfavored and only appropriate in rare circumstances. See Bergdale v. Countrywide Bank 

FSB, No. CV-12-8057-PCT-SMM, 2014 WL 12643162, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 23, 2014) 

(“[Reconsideration] motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court to rethink 

what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.”) (citation omitted). A 

motion for reconsideration will be granted only where the Court “(1) is presented with 

newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 

Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

In the Motion, Plaintiff argues that his failure to appear at the discovery dispute 

hearing should be excused for good cause. (Doc. 75 at 2-3) Specifically, Plaintiff asserts 

that he was seeking medical treatment due to severe pain on November 25-27, 2019, and 

therefore, he could not attend the hearing. (Doc. 75 at 2-3) In addition, Plaintiff requests 

that the Court reconsider its Order because dismissal with prejudice is “an extremely drastic 

decision.” (Doc. 75 at 5) However, Plaintiff failed to timely file his Motion, and Plaintiff 

has not shown that the Court committed clear error or that the initial decision was 

manifestly unjust. See ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d at 1263. It remains that Plaintiff failed to appear 

twice at critical stages in this case. Additionally, Plaintiff waited almost a month to notify 

the Court of the reasoning for his failure to appear at the discovery dispute hearing. Plaintiff 

cannot now seek to correct his failures through an untimely motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 75) is denied. 

Dated this 6th day of January, 2020.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:17-cv-04803-SPL Document 79 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 2