Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02118/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02118-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH MILLER,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES, et

al,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 02-2118 MJJ (MEJ)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before the Court is plaintiff Ralph Miller's Motion for Leave to File a Motion for

Reconsideration, filed April 26, 2006. Doc. #473. In his motion, Miller requests that the Court

reconsider its April 14, 2006 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part IBM's Motion for

Sanctions (Doc. #422) as it relates to certain witnesses barred from testifying in this case. Miller

suggests that the witnesses should only be precluded from offering expert opinions.

Under Local Rule 7-9(b), Plaintiff must specifically show:

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

fact or 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;

(2) The emergence of new material facts or 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.

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 504 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Here, the Court finds that good cause does not exist to reconsider its April 14 order. The

basis for the order was not the distinction between whether they were fact or expert witnesses. It

was that, despite the Court's direction to Miller to make these witnesses available for deposition,

there was "no excuse for Miller's failure to comply with its previous orders and make these six

witnesses available for deposition." Doc. #422 at 12:20-21. As this finding remains true, Miller

cannot meet his burden under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) and the Court hereby DENIES Miller's

motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2006 MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 504 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 2