Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04992/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04992-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SNYDER,

Plaintiff,

v

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE et al,

Defendants. /

No C-03-4992 VRW

ORDER

Presently before the court is plaintiff Richard Snyder’s

(“Snyder”) renewed motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration (Doc #72) of the court’s April 29, 2005, findings

of fact and conclusions of law. Doc #67. For the reasons

discussed herein, the court DENIES Snyder’s motion.

I

First, the court addresses its jurisdiction to hear this

motion. By order dated February 2, 2005, the court reserved

decision on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment

regarding the propriety of a fee that was charged to Snyder in

connection with his request under the Freedom of Information Act

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 76 Filed 07/27/05 Page 1 of 4
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

(FOIA). Doc #44. The court determined that such a challenge was

properly cognizable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5

USC § 706(2), and permitted the parties to file further motions for

summary judgment. Doc #44 at 14:14-27. At the hearing on April 7,

2005, the court suggested that proceedings would be expedited if

the parties would stipulate to treating the cross-motions for

summary judgment as a bench trial on the papers submitted

(including the administrative record, Doc #8). The parties agreed. 

Accordingly, on April 29, 2005, the court issued its findings of

fact and conclusions of law with respect to the so-called CAGE Code

fee (the “fee”). The court concluded that plaintiff owes

defendants $67.84 for the processing of certain FOIA requests. Doc

#67. This order constituted a partial summary judgment on the fee

issue. See FRCP 56(d). As such, the order was not a final

judgment and not appealable under 28 USC 1292. Id; see also,

Chacon v Babcock, 640 F2d 221, 222 (9th Cir 1981). 

Snyder filed a notice of appeal on May 11, 2005. On June

21, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Snyder subsequently

filed his first motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration with this court on June 28, 2005. Doc #70. 

Unaware that the appellate court had dismissed Snyder’s appeal, the

court declined to entertain Snyder’s motion to reconsider due to a

perceived lack of jurisdiction. Doc #71. This court’s

jurisdiction was reestablished by the appellate court’s dismissal

of Snyder’s appeal.

//

//

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 76 Filed 07/27/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

II

Snyder moves the court for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of the court’s order of partial summary judgment. 

Doc # 67. Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, to obtain a motion for

reconsideration Snyder must show one of the following: (1) that a

material difference in fact or law exists, which was not presented

to the court previously due to no fault of plaintiff; (2) that a

material change in fact or law has occurred since the order was

filed; or (3) that there was a “manifest failure by the Court to

consider material facts or dispositive arguments” previously

presented by plaintiff. Civ L R 7-9(b). Moreover, “[n]o motion

for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral

or written argument” previously presented to the court. Civ L R 7-

9(c). In other words, a motion for reconsideration is improper if

it seeks to reargue issues already decided by the court.

Snyder’s motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration fails to meet the standard of Rule 7-9; the motion

does not posit an excusable failure to present material facts or

law, nor does it indicate that a material change in fact or law

occurred subsequent to the April 29, 2005, order. Nor does Snyder

allege that the court failed to consider material facts or

arguments. Rather, Snyder takes issue with the court’s

characterization of his arguments and the court’s conclusions on

these issues. This is unavailing; a motion for reconsideration

should not be used to ask the court “to rethink what the court had

already thought through -- rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt,

Inc v Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc, 99 FRD 99, 101 (ED Va 1983); see

Refrigeration Sales Co v Mitchell-Jackson, Inc, 605 F Supp 6, 7 (ND

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 76 Filed 07/27/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Ill 1983). Snyder’s arguments that the court’s April 29, 2005,

order was in error should be directed to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit--not this court. See Refrigeration

Sales Co, 605 F Supp at 7.

 

III

Accordingly, Snyder’s motion for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration is DENIED. Snyder may appeal the court’s order

after entry of judgment adjudicating all remaining claims, rights

and liabilities of all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04992-VRW Document 76 Filed 07/27/05 Page 4 of 4