Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05286/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05286-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TUTOR-SALIBA CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-02-5286 CW (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION;

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

STRIKE; AND REFERRING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION TO

SPECIAL MASTER

(Docket Nos. 637, 644)

In an order filed on May 10, 2005, the Court affirmed the ruling of Justice Hanlon and

ordered Plaintiffs to produce responsive documents within 15 days, i.e., by May 25, 2005. On May

25, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a document called “report to Court on status of compliance with order re

Fourth Request for Production.” 

In this report, Plaintiffs explained that, while they had produced some responsive documents,

they were not able to finish the production by May 25 as ordered and sought leave to produce the

remaining documents by July 15, 2005, and a privilege log by July 25, 2005. Plaintiffs explained,

inter alia, that: “[W]hile [they] had previously identified and been able to review for production

many sources of electronic data before the Court’s recent orders were entered, recent efforts by the

Airport’s IT personnel (who were relatively new to the Airport and unfamiliar with the systems used

during construction of the projects at issue), undertaken in direct response to the Court’s orders,

revealed the existence of a considerable volume of backup tapes and servers that potentially

contained responsive materials.” Report at 3.

Case 4:02-cv-05286-CW Document 645 Filed 05/31/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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-

In response to the report, the Tutor Defendants filed a motion to strike. The Tutor

Defendants argued, inter alia, that the report should be stricken because (1) the extension sought by

Plaintiffs has already been denied by both Justice Hanlon and this Court; (2) the report is actually a

motion for reconsideration and fails to meet the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-9; (3) the report

is actually an ex parte application and fails to meet the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-10; (4)

the report should have been directed to Justice Hanlon first; (5) the report is another attempt by

Plaintiffs to delay this case, which has prejudiced the Tutor Defendants; and (6) the report is a

premature opposition to a motion for contempt and sanctions that the Tutor Defendants intend to

bring based on Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with their discovery oblgiation and orders of the special

master and this Court.

The Court agrees with the Tutor Defendants that Plaintiffs’ report -- and the request for an

extension contained therein -- should be construed as a motion for reconsideration. However, the

Court does not agree with the Tutor Defendants that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the requirements

of Civil Local Rule 7-9. Civil Local Rule 7-9 provides that “[n]o party may notice a motion for

reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). It then

provides that:

A motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration must be made

in accordance with the requirements of Civil L.R. 7-9. The moving

party must specifically show:

(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 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.

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b).

Case 4:02-cv-05286-CW Document 645 Filed 05/31/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

-3-

Here, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that “[t]he emergence of new

material facts . . . occurring after the time of [Justice Hanlon and the Court’s] order[s]” -- namely,

the existence of additional backup tapes and servers that contain potentially responsive material and

the devotion of a number of resources to the production effort (e.g., Airport IT staff, City Attorney

IT staff, Farella staff, and outside consultants) but still an inability to complete the production as

ordered. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration and DENIES the Tutor Defendants’ motion to strike. However, the Court shall, as

suggested by the Tutor Defendants, refer the motion for reconsideration to Justice Hanlon for

resolution so that he may be given the first opportunity to consider the new facts presented by

Plaintiffs.

This order disposes of Docket No. 644.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2005

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-05286-CW Document 645 Filed 05/31/05 Page 3 of 3