Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-04360/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-04360-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION

C-02-04360 RMW

*E-FILED - 4/6/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EDDIE GARCIA; EDDIE STEVE GARCIA;

CYNTHIA GARCIA, on behalf of herself

and as Guardian ad Litem for DEVANNA

GARCIA, JUSTINE GARCIA; and ESTATE

OF FERNANDO GARCIA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY; DEPUTY

SHERIFF DAWSON; and DOES 1-100,

Defendants.

Case No.: C-02-04360 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF 

[Re: Docket # 175]

Pending before the court is plaintiffs' motion for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e) and 60(b)) from the judgment entered in this case on September 29, 2004 following

the grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs offer additional evidence

in support of their motion and essentially argue that this evidence, along with what had

previously be offered, presents a triable issue of fact. The court disagrees. First, the

additional evidence offered was available, or at least could have been discovered with

reasonable diligence, by the time plaintiffs filed their original opposition to defendants'

summary judgment motion. See Shalit v. Coppe, 182 F.2d 1124,1132 (9th Cir. 1999)

("The law is clear that reconsideration is appropriate only in very limited circumstances, and

Case 5:02-cv-04360-RMW Document 197 Filed 04/06/06 Page 1 of 3
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 DENYING RECONSIDERATION

C-02-04360 RMW

2

that the overwhelming weight of authority is that the failure to file documents in an original

motion or opposition does not turn the late filed documents into newly discovered

evidence); Frederick S. Wyle Prof'l Corp. v. Texaco, 764 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1985)

(internal quotations omitted). Second, the evidence presented prior to the hearing on the

summary judgment motion established no material issues of disputed fact. Finally, there

has been no intervening change of controlling law, new evidence discovered, or need to

correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of

Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1981).

The motion for relief is denied.

DATED: 3/31/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:02-cv-04360-RMW Document 197 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 3
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 DENYING RECONSIDERATION

C-02-04360 RMW

3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff(s):

Steve M. Defilippis sdefilippis@piconeanddefilippis.com

Counsel for Defendant(s):

Stephen H. Schmid stephen.schmid@cco.co.santa-clara.ca.us

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 4/6/06 /s/ JG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:02-cv-04360-RMW Document 197 Filed 04/06/06 Page 3 of 3