Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-04645/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-04645-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

Case No.: 5:18-cv-04645-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION; DENYING CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW 

 1 

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

SCOTT JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OAK CREEK INVESTMENTS, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 5:18-cv-04645-EJD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; 

DENYING CERTIFICATION OF 

INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW 

Re: Dkt. No. 29 

 On December 19, 2019, this Court granted Defendant Oak Creek Investments’ motion for 

administrative relief and ordered Plaintiff to produce to Defendant by December 31, 2019 billing 

information in anticipation of the Parties’ upcoming January 28, 2020 mediation session. Order 

Granting Defendant’s Motion for Administrative Relief, Dkt. 29. Plaintiff argues that leave to file 

a motion for reconsideration should be granted because the controlling law on this matter has 

changed since the order granting relief was entered. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks interlocutory 

review. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES these requests. 

I. Motion for Reconsideration 

 Reconsideration of a final judgment, order, or proceeding is appropriate if (1) at the time of 

the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, 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; (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 

unjust; or (3) if new material facts emerge or a material change of law occurs after the time of the 

interlocutory order. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Absent these three things, “a motion for 

Case 5:18-cv-04645-EJD Document 30 Filed 01/09/20 Page 1 of 3
Case No.: 5:18-cv-04645-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION; DENYING CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW 

 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 Californi

a

reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 

342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 

890 (9th Cir. 2000)). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Id. (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

 Plaintiff argues that a material difference in law exists because General Order 56 was 

recently amended. The amended order is controlling in this case. General Order 56(6) formerly 

provided: 

If the parties reach a tentative agreement on injunctive relief, plaintiff 

shall forthwith provide defendant with a statement of costs and 

attorney’s fees incurred to date, and make a demand for settlement of 

the case in its entirety (including any additional damages not included 

in the Rule 26(a) disclosures). Plaintiff should not require execution 

of a formal agreement regarding injunctive relief as a precondition to 

providing defendant with the statement of costs and attorney’s fees, 

and additional damages. If requested by defendant, plaintiff should 

provide documentation and support for its attorney’s fees similar to 

what an attorney would provide in a billing statement to a client. 

(emphasis added). 

The Court held that this required Plaintiff to provide Defendant with “documentation and support” 

for attorneys’ fees and costs. See Dkt. 29 at 4. The Court held that attorney-client privilege was 

not violated as Plaintiff could “frame the task descriptions at a high level.” Id. at 6. 

 Amended General Order 56(5) provides: 

Whenever plaintiff makes a monetary demand, defendant may request 

and plaintiff then promptly shall provide an itemization of costs, an 

overall summary of the major categories of work performed, the total 

number of hours each time keeper spent on each category of work, 

and each time keeper’s billing rate. If plaintiff prefers, plaintiff may 

instead provide complete, detailed time records (redacted, if 

necessary, for attorney-client privilege and work product). 

(emphasis added). 

The provisions are nearly identical. Both require a plaintiff to promptly provide an itemization of 

costs and documentation supporting any demand of attorney’s fees and costs. Hence, a material 

change in law does not exist. Moreover, Plaintiff does not present any new information that the 

Case 5:18-cv-04645-EJD Document 30 Filed 01/09/20 Page 2 of 3
Case No.: 5:18-cv-04645-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION; DENYING CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW 

 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Court did not already consider when reaching the conclusion that the disclosure of the requested 

billing information could be consistent with California law governing attorney-client privilege. 

Accordingly, because no “material change of law or facts” exists, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 

file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

II. Interlocutory Appeal 

 In the alternative, Plaintiff requests certification of the Court’s December 2019 Order for 

interlocutory review. The Court’s December 2019 Order does not meet the standards set forth in 

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), requiring a “controlling question of law” that “may materially advance the 

ultimate termination of the litigation.” Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for certification of the 

Order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 9, 2020 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:18-cv-04645-EJD Document 30 Filed 01/09/20 Page 3 of 3