Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03602/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03602-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

SANAE HOROWITZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERZ NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03602-DMR 

ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY 

LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 37

The court has received the parties’ joint discovery letter. [Docket No. 37 (Joint Letter).] 

In the letter, Defendant Merz North America, Inc. asks for clarification of a portion of the court’s 

March 24, 2016 order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff Sanae Horowitz’s motion to 

quash various subpoenas to third parties. [Docket No. 31 (Minute Order).] 

While styled as a motion for clarification, Defendant appears to seek reconsideration of the 

following portion of the court’s order: “Defendant’s subpoena to [Plaintiff’s former employer] St. 

Jude Medical is quashed, except that Defendant may obtain documents related to any work 

accommodation requested by or granted to Plaintiff by St. Jude from January 8, 2014 through June 

30, 2014.” Minute Order. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, a party may seek leave to file a 

motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order at any time before judgment. Civ. L.R. 7-

9(a). A motion for reconsideration may be made on one of three grounds: (1) a material difference 

in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the court, which, in the exercise of 

reasonable diligence, the party applying for reconsideration did not know at the time of the order 

for which reconsideration is sought; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or

(3) a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments 

presented before such order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). The moving party may not reargue any 

written or oral argument previously asserted to the court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). Whether to grant leave 

Case 4:15-cv-03602-DMR Document 38 Filed 05/03/16 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

to file a motion for reconsideration under Rule 7-9 is committed to the court’s sound discretion. 

See Montebueno Mktg., Inc. v. Del Monte Corp.—USA, 570 F. App’x 675, 676 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007)). 

Defendant’s motion is procedurally improper, because it did not request leave to file a 

motion for reconsideration. Moreover, Defendant does not argue that any of the three grounds for 

reconsideration are present here. Instead, it essentially presents new theories of relevance that it 

could have presented when the matter was originally briefed and argued. Accordingly, 

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is denied, except to the extent that Plaintiff has expressed 

no objection to Defendant obtaining earnings records from St. Jude. The court also notes that 

Plaintiff has agreed to answer deposition questions regarding any overlap in the time she worked 

for Defendant and for St. Jude, her earnings at St. Jude, and the accommodations she requested at 

St. Jude.

Finally, Defendant asserts that it has learned that a third party agency, Volt Workforce 

Solutions, may have placed Plaintiff to work at St. Jude. Defendant “requests permission from the 

Court to seek” documents related to Plaintiff’s work at St. Jude, including her employment or 

independent contractor status, wage history, job performance, termination, and workplace 

accommodations. Joint Letter at 1. Defendant’s request is denied as procedurally improper. If 

Defendant wishes to obtain discovery from a third party, it may issue a subpoena in accordance 

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. To the extent Plaintiff objects, the parties shall comply 

with the court’s Standing Order regarding resolution of discovery disputes.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-03602-DMR Document 38 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 2