Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02004/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02004-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

$50,800.00 in U. S. Currency,

Defendant. __________________________________

Rodney Burnett-Johnson,

Claimant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2004-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This case arises on the parties’ Joint Motion to Reconsider Order of June

16, 2011, filed on June 17, 2011. (Doc. 37) Counsel now clarify that neither counsel nor

their Notice of Extension of Discovery Deadline, doc. 35, intended to request a “modification of any time line or deadline imposed by the Court in the Scheduling Order.” (Id. at

2) According to counsel, the Notice was simply “a courtesy to the Court . . . to

demonstrate that the parties are diligently pursuing the discovery obligations as set out by

the Court in the Scheduling Order of March 29, 2011.” (Id.)

I. Motions for Reconsideration

A motion to reconsider must provide a valid ground for reconsideration by

showing two elements. All Hawaii Tours Corp. v. Polunesian Cultural Ctr., 116 F.R.D.

645, 648-49 (D. Haw. 1987), rev’d on other grounds, 855 F.2d 860 (1988). First, it must

demonstrate some valid reason why the Court should reconsider its prior decision. Id. 

Case 2:10-cv-02004-MHB Document 38 Filed 07/08/11 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 -

Second, it must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the Court

to reverse its prior decision. Id. Courts have distilled three (3) major grounds justifying

reconsideration. They are: 1) an intervening change in the controlling law, 2) the

availability of new evidence, and 3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest

injustice. Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal.

1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987);

Hegler v. Borg, 50 F.3d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1029 (1995);

Kennedy v. Lubar, 273 F.3d 1293, 1299, fn. 6 (10th Cir. 2001); See generally C. Wright,

A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 4478 at 790. A motion for

reconsideration is not an opportunity to present facts that were known to the party on the

earlier motion, nor new legal theories in place of the ones used earlier that did not prevail.

L.I. Head Start Child Development Services, Inc. v. Kearse, 96 F.Supp.2d 209, 211 - 212

(E.D.N.Y. 2000). “Nor may the party merely reiterate or repackage an argument

previously rejected by the court; that argument is for appeal.” PAB Aviation, Inc. v.

United States, 2000 WL 1240196 at *1 (E.D.N.Y. 2000).

The District of Arizona’s Local Rule (“LRCiv”) 7.2(g)(1) provides that

“[t]he Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a

showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have

been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. . . .” LRCiv 7.2(g), as

amended on December 1, 2010.

II. Discussion

Counsel now clarify that when their May 9, 2011 Notice, doc. 35,

indicated “that Claimant may have an extension of the discovery deadline until July 15,

2011[,]” that they were referring to the date Claimant’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery

were due, not an effort to amend the Rule 16 discovery deadlines in the March 29, 2011

scheduling order. Why counsel would file a two-page notice rather than a simple

stipulation and separate order confirming counsels’ discovery agreement regarding

responses, the customary and better practice followed by most civil litigators, is unclear.

Case 2:10-cv-02004-MHB Document 38 Filed 07/08/11 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 -

The Court agrees with counsel that “[t]he Judges of the Arizona District Court have

always encouraged counsel to resolve such discovery issues without seeking input from

the trial judge.” (Doc. 37 at 2) Busy federal judges have neither the interest nor time to

micro-manage when responses to routine discovery are due to adverse counsel in civil

cases and only when a motion to compel is filed does the Court assert itself in the issue.

The Court will not amend its prior order because counsel were less than clear in what they

were attempting to communicate to the Court and it does not contain manifest error. If

anything, counsel received a preview of how firm the Court views the Scheduling Order’s

deadlines in this case. The Court’s June 16, 2011 Order does not preclude counsel from

filing a stipulation and separate order confirming counsels’ discovery agreement

regarding responses.

Under the standard set forth above, the Court sees no compelling reason to

reconsider its decision. Thus, the Joint Motion to Reconsider Order of June

16, 2011, doc. 37, is DENIED.

DATED this 8th day of July, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02004-MHB Document 38 Filed 07/08/11 Page 3 of 3