Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00654/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00654-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 29:791 Job Discrimination (Rehabilitation Act)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEIRDRE CLARK,

Plaintiff,

v.

VICTORIA A. LIPNIC,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-00654-JCS 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 35

Non-party Michael Buesgens, also known as Nevada Smith, pro se, filed requests for the 

Court to reopen this case and require the terms of the parties’ settlement to be placed on the 

record, apparently to support his own separate litigation against the defendant in this case, the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The Court denied those requests. 

Buesgens has now filed a request for reconsideration. This Court’s local rules require that 

any party seeking reconsideration must first file a motion for leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). Buesgens has not sought leave to file his present motion, and 

that alone is reason for denial. Regardless, even if Buesgens had sought leave, the Court would 

deny it, because Buesgens is not a party to this case and has no cognizable interest in it. If 

Buesgens has any right to review the EEOC’s settlement agreements with other litigants in cases 

separate from his own—an issue on which this Court expresses no opinion; he might well not have 

any such right—the avenue for him to do so would be through discovery in his own lawsuit, or 

perhaps a request under the Freedom of Information Act, not filing motions in cases where he is 

not a party.1 

 

1 Buesgens’s request for reconsideration cites a provision of the EEOC Regional Attorney’s 

Manual stating that “[o]nce the Commission has filed suit, the agency will not enter into 

settlements that are subject to confidentiality provisions.” By its terms, that manual governs cases 

brought by the EEOC, not cases where the EEOC is named as a defendant.

Case 3:18-cv-00654-JCS Document 36 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Buesgens’s request for reconsideration is DENIED, and any further filings by Buesgens in 

this action will not receive a response.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2019

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-00654-JCS Document 36 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 2