Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05980/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05980-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. T. LUNDY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-05980-DLB PC

ORDER DENYING OBJECTION,

CONSTRUED AS A MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 64)

I. Order

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Edward Jones (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint, filed March 22, 2007, against defendants Lundy, Manning,

and Cadena (“defendants”) for using excessive physical force, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. This matter is currently set for jury trial on October 9, 2007, before the

undersigned. 

On January 25, 2007, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part

plaintiff’s motion to compel filed on December 20, 2006. The order stated in relevant part:

POD 5: Plaintiff seeks defendants’ personnel files for the past five years. 

Defendants object on the grounds that the request is vague, ambiguous, overly

broad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence, and on the grounds of confidentiality and privilege. 

“Government personnel files are considered official information.” Sanchez v.

City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S.

Case 1:03-cv-05980-DLB Document 69 Filed 06/04/07 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

2

957, 112 S.Ct. 416 (1991); Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 299 C.D. Cal.

1992). However, defendants’ bare, unsupported objection of confidentiality and

privilege is insufficient to avoid production of discoverable documents from

defendants’ personnel files. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613; Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 669. 

Plaintiff seeks this information as character evidence showing defendants’

propensity for violence. Character evidence “is not admissible to prove the

character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith,” Fed. R. Ev.

404(b), and despite plaintiff’s argument to the contrary, defendants’ character or

character traits are not an essential element of plaintiff’s excessive force claim

against, Fed. R. Ev. 405(b). However, character evidence may be admissible for

other purposes and plaintiff is entitled to discoverable information.

Plaintiff’s request as presently drafted is overly broad. If plaintiff is willing to

narrow his inquiry to a period of three years and limit it to like circumstances, the

court will grant his motion and direct defendants to produce any documents in

their personnel files responsive to the request. However, plaintiff is required to

notify the court and defendants whether he accepts this limitation within thirty

days. If plaintiff fails to do so, his motion to compel a response to this request is

deemed denied. If plaintiff accepts the limitation and notifies defendants and the

court of his acceptance within thirty days, defendants have thirty days thereafter

to respond. Names and personal information of other inmates or individuals other

than the named defendants may be redacted from the documents, and any of

defendants’ personal information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates,

home addresses, etc. may be redacted. If further disputes or concerns arise, the

parties may at that time contact the court for assistance. 

(Doc. 49, 3:3-27 (emphasis added).)

On February 13, 2007, plaintiff notified the court that he did not accept the limitation and

that he believed he was entitled to a response to his request as drafted. (Doc. 52.) In light of

plaintiff’s unwillingness to accept the court’s limitation of his document request, plaintiff’s

request was denied in full as overly broad by the court on March 22, 2007. (Doc. 57.) On April

27, 2007, plaintiff filed an objection. (Doc. 64.) Defendants did not file a response. There is no

provision for an objection to an order and the court therefore construes the objection as a motion

for reconsideration of the court’s order.

B. Motion for Reconsideration

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d

1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir.

1992). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to

make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v.

Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-6 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to

ask the court to rethink what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d

Case 1:03-cv-05980-DLB Document 69 Filed 06/04/07 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

3

1112, 1116 (D.Ariz.1998). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered

by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” U.S.

v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick

Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th

Cir. 1983), en banc. To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing

nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on

other grounds 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local

Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to

exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist

for the motion.”

Plaintiff was informed that his request as drafted was overly broad and that the court

would grant the request if plaintiff was willing to narrow his inquiry to a period of three years

and limit it to like circumstances. (Doc. 49.) Plaintiff opted not to agree to the limitation and his

request was therefore denied. (Docs. 52, 57.) Plaintiff’s contention that he told the court he

wanted the court to conduct an in camera review of the documents does not alter these facts. 

Plaintiff was given the opportunity to limit his request and plaintiff made the decision not to limit

the request. Plaintiff has set forth no grounds justifying reconsideration. Rather, plaintiff is

improperly seeking to have the court rethink what it has already thought. Rezzonico, 32

F.Supp.2d at 1116. In light of plaintiff’s decision not to narrow his request, the court did not err

in denying his request as overly broad.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 2, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05980-DLB Document 69 Filed 06/04/07 Page 3 of 3