Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02567/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02567-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Billy Taylor, 

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 

vs.

AFS Technologies, Inc.; Kurien Jacob;

Walter Barandarian; Kimberly Curtis;

and Rebecca Barr,

Defendants/Counterclaimant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-2567-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On August 18, 2010, the Court issued an order (Doc. 176) denying Plaintiff’s motion

for “severe” sanctions against Defendants for “willful perjurious, false, and misleading

testimony during depositions” (Doc. 164). Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of that

order on November 12, 2010. Doc. 241. The motion was denied as untimely. Doc. 242.

Plaintiff has now filed a second motion for reconsideration, claiming that material facts

occurred since the Court’s order of August 18. Doc. 254.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); S.E.C. v. Kuipers,

No. 09-36016, 2010 WL 3735788, at *3 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2010). They are to be granted

only in rare circumstances. Stetter v. Blackpool, No. CV 09-1071-PHX-DGC, 2009 WL

3348522, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 15, 2009). No such circumstances exist in this case.

As the Court previously has explained (Doc. 176 at 2), if Plaintiff disagrees with

deposition testimony given by witnesses, he is free to challenge that testimony through his

own factual assertions, impeach it through other evidence, and cross-examine the witnesses

Case 2:09-cv-02567-DGC Document 256 Filed 12/01/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

vigorously at trial. Plaintiff’s repeated motions for sanctions and for reconsideration are

“needlessly multiplying litigation in this case.” Id. Any further motion for reconsideration

of this issue will be summarily denied. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration (Doc. 254) is

denied.

DATED this 1st day of December, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02567-DGC Document 256 Filed 12/01/10 Page 2 of 2