Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-mc-00079/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-mc-00079-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 26:7609 IRS: Petition to Quash IRS Summons

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Susan H. Grant, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

Internal Revenue Service, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. MC06-0079-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On November 28, 2006, the Court entered an order granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss

and terminating this action. Dkt. #14. Petitioner has now filed a Motion to Limit Documents to be

Produced by J.P. Morgan Chase to 2005 Home Equity Loan Application. Dkt. #15. The motion

argues that the Court’s previous order applied only to a portion of the documents at issue and that

the Court therefore should enter an order prohibiting Respondent from obtaining additional

documents by subpoena. Id. 

Because this action has been terminated and the Petitioner’s motion argues in effect that the

Court’s dismissal of this action was error, the Court will consider the motion to be a motion for

reconsideration. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to make

new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. See Northwest Acceptance Corp. v.

Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp.

2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). Courts in this District have identified four circumstances where a

motion for reconsideration will be granted: (1) where the moving party has discovered material

Case 2:06-mc-00079-DGC Document 16 Filed 01/17/07 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 -

differences in fact or law from those presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision, and the

party could not previously have known of the factual or legal differences through the exercise of

reasonable diligence; (2) where material factual events have occurred since the Court’s initial

decision; (3) where there has been a material change in the law since the Court’s initial decision; or

(4) where the movant makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider material facts

that were presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers

Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). 

Petitioner does not satisfy these standards. She has not discovered new facts that were

unavailable at the time of the previous order, she does not claim that material factual events have

occurred since the prior order, she does not argue that there has been a material change in the law,

and she has not made a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider material facts that were

presented to the Court at the time of the prior decision. As a result, Petitioner’s motion will be

denied.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Limit Documents to be Produced by J.P.

Morgan Chase to 2005 Home Equity Loan Application (Dkt. #15) is denied

DATED this 16th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-mc-00079-DGC Document 16 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 2