Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 

Case No. C 05-01937 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

GRANT OF PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 7/14/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD LYTEL,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

JANET SIMPSON,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 05-01937 JF (PVT)

ORDER1 GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF GRANT OF PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[re: docket no. 311]

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

On May 8, 2006, this Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff

Richard Lytel’s (“Lytel”) motion for summary judgment. Defendant Janet Simpson (“Simpson”)

now moves for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s grant of summary

judgment on Simpson’s counterclaim for retaliation under California Government Code §

12940(h). The motion is governed by Civil Local Rule 7-9, which requires that the party seeking

leave to file a motion for reconsideration must show:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 319 Filed 07/14/06 Page 1 of 4
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

 Although this statement is not supported by an accompanying affidavit, the Court

presumes it to be true for the purpose of the instant motion. The Court expects that Simpson’s

motion for reconsideration will be accompanied by the necessary supporting documents.

2

Case No. C 05-01937 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

GRANT OF PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC1)

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).

Simpson seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration on two grounds. First, Simpson

received nearly five-hundred pages of documents responsive to a request for production only one

day before her opposition brief was due.2 These documents included evidence that Lytel

attempted to cause Simpson’s termination from Sun Microsystems, Inc., which arguably could

support a claim of retaliation. Second, the Supreme Court has recently broadened the standard

for establishing an act of retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e, et seq. See Burlington No. & S.F. Rwy. Co. v. White, No. 05-259, slip op. at 13 (U.S.

June 22, 2006) (“In our view, a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found

the challenged action materially adverse, ‘which in this context meas it well might have

‘dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.’’”). 

Considering both of these developments, the Court will grant the instant motion for leave to file a

motion for reconsideration.

In light of the scheduled hearing date of September 22, 2006, the Court will hear

Simpson’s motion for reconsideration on shortened time. Simpson shall file a motion for

reconsideration by Monday July 24, 2006. Lytel shall file any opposition by Monday July 31,

2006, and Simpson shall file any reply by Monday August 7, 2006. The Court will hear oral

argument on Simpson’s motion for reconsideration on Friday August 11, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 319 Filed 07/14/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Case No. C 05-01937 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

GRANT OF PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC1)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 14, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Court

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 319 Filed 07/14/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case No. C 05-01937 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

GRANT OF PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Matthew A. Bisbee mbisbee@ropers.com, pdunn@ropers.com

Koray J. Bulut kbulut@wsgr.com, jbertolani@wsgr.com

Gary Michael Gansle ggansle@wsgr.com, jbertolani@wsgr.com; kbulut@wsgr.com

Lindy Robin Gonzalez lgonzalez@ropers.com, ghuerta@ropers.com

Eric C. Kastner eck@kastnerbanchero.com, fh@kastnerbanchero.com

Ulrico S. Rosales urosales@wsgr.com, dlewis@wsgr.com

Jeffrey Filon Ryan jr@rslattorneys.com

John S. Simonson jsimonson@ropers.com, pdunn@ropers.com;

knguyen@ropers.com

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 319 Filed 07/14/06 Page 4 of 4