Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01016/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01016-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 26:7402 IRS: Petition to Enforce IRS Summons

---

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

United States of America, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

David H. Griggs, 

Respondent. __________________________________ David H. Griggs,

Petitioner,

vs.

United States of America; Internal

Revenue Service; and Jennifer Pardue,

Revenue Officer, IRS,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1016–PHX-DGC

(Lead Case)

No. MC-08-0103-PHX-DGC

(Consolidated Case)

ORDER

On November 25, 2009, the Court filed an Order accepting the Report &

Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Mark Aspey and denying Respondent

Griggs’s motion to dismiss the Court’s order enforcing an IRS summons. Dkt. #81. Griggs

has filed a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. #83. For the reasons that follow, the Court will

deny Griggs’s motion for reconsideration.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

circumstances. See Stetter v. Blackpool, No. CV 09-1071-PHX-DGC, 2009 WL 3348522,

at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 15, 2009). A motion for reconsideration will be denied “absent a

showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have

Case 2:08-cv-01016-DGC Document 85 Filed 12/15/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1);

see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Mere disagreement with an order

is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. Nor should reconsideration be used to make new

arguments or to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. See N.W. Acceptance Corp. v.

Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988).

Courts in this district have identified four circumstances where a motion for

reconsideration will be granted: (1) the moving party has discovered material differences in

fact or law from those presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision, and the party

could not previously have known of the factual or legal differences through the exercise of

reasonable diligence, (2) material factual events have occurred since the Court’s initial

decision, (3) there has been a material change in the law since the Court’s initial decision,

or (4) the moving party makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider

material facts that were presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision. See, e.g.,

Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).

Griggs has shown none of these circumstances. He reiterates the arguments made in

his original motion and in his objection to the R&R, stating that he never destroyed any

records and that he has met his burden of showing that he is unable to produce the records

the IRS has requested. Dkt. #83 at 3. Griggs also argues that he should not be required to

“go out and obtain documents from other recordkeepers – third parties, such as banks and

credit card companies – to satisfy an IRS summons,” but he cites no authority in support of

this argument. Id. at 4. Griggs has failed to show that the law has changed, that facts have

changed, or that this Court failed to consider any material facts.

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent Griggs’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #83)

is denied.

DATED this 14th day of December, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01016-DGC Document 85 Filed 12/15/09 Page 2 of 2