Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00468/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00468-6/pdf.json

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

---

1

16-cv-0468-WQH-AGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Ashwin KHOBRAGADE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COVIDIEN LP,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-cv-0468-WQH-AGS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO RECONSIDER (ECF 

No. 94)

On October 4, 2018, Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone issued an order denying 

plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 93.) Judge Boone concluded that plaintiff 

failed to demonstrate good cause for reopening discovery in that he had not conducted any 

discovery prior to the cutoff date and had waited nearly five months after the cutoff date 

before filing his motion to reopen. On October 9, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider 

Judge Boone’s Order. (ECF No. 94.) For the reasons below, the Court denies plaintiff’s 

motion for reconsideration. 

Reconsideration is appropriate only in rare circumstances to correct manifest 

errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 

Multnomah Cty., Or. v. AcandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60, a party can obtain relief from a court order for the 

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 

Case 3:16-cv-00468-WQH-AGS Document 98 Filed 10/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-cv-0468-WQH-AGS

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

discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released, or discharged; or (6) “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b). Plaintiff relies on the sixth clause, which is the “catch-all” provision. Hamilton v. 

Newland, 374 F.3d 822, 825 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Rule 60(b)). Relief under clause six is 

available only in extraordinary circumstances, Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 536 

(2005) (citing Ackerman v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950)), and should be 

provided only “sparingly and as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice.” 

Hamilton, 374 F.3d at 825.

Further, under Local Rule 7.1(i), the district court will not entertain a motion for 

reconsideration unless “new or different facts are claimed to exist which did not exist, or 

were not shown, upon such prior application.” Civ. L. R. 7.1(i)(1); see Fuller v. M.G. 

Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (motion for reconsideration denied where 

movants “presented no arguments which the court had not already considered and 

rejected”). 

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any extraordinary circumstance that would warrant 

relief from Judge Boone’s order. Additionally, plaintiff fails to meet Local Rule 7.1’s 

requirements because he fails to identify any new facts or circumstances warranting 

reconsideration. Instead, he simply reiterates the same arguments made in his earlier 

motion to reopen discovery (ECF No. 89). Plaintiff continues to claim that, due to his pro 

se status and inability to understand the law, he was unaware that discovery had not been 

performed. (ECF No. 94, at 10.) Further, plaintiff alleges he was unaware that he needed 

to file a motion to reopen discovery. (Id.) 

While the Court is sympathetic to plaintiff’s attempts to obtain new counsel and

litigate the case on his own following the withdrawal of his former counsel, the Court 

agrees with Judge Boone’s conclusion that plaintiff cannot rely on his pro se status as an 

excuse for his failure to propound his own discovery in this case. (ECF No. 93, at 2-3.)

These are the same arguments raised in plaintiff’s original motion to reopen discovery, and 

he fails to demonstrate any error or mistake in Judge Boone’s Order that would warrant 

Case 3:16-cv-00468-WQH-AGS Document 98 Filed 10/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-cv-0468-WQH-AGS

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

reconsideration. Because plaintiff does not offer any new law or facts justifying 

reconsideration of Judge Boone’s October 4, 2018 Order, his motion for reconsideration 

fails and is, therefore, denied.

Dated: October 12, 2018

 Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman

Case 3:16-cv-00468-WQH-AGS Document 98 Filed 10/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3