Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05914/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05914-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

PENTALPHA MACAU COMMERCIAL

OFFSHORE LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DAMODER REDDY,

Defendant. /

No. C-03-05914 MMC (EDL)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT LEAVE

TO FILE A MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF OCTOBER 27,

2005 DISCOVERY ORDER

After failing to oppose Plaintiff Pentalpha Macau Commercial Offshore Limited’s Motion to

Compel Documents, For Preclusion Sanctions, and For Monetary Sanctions (the “Discovery

Motion”), and almost one month after this Court issued its Order Granting in Part the Discovery

Motion (the “October 27, 2005 Order”), Defendant Damoder Reddy now requests leave of Court to

file a motion for reconsideration of the October 27, 2005 Order.

Reddy seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration on the ground that Local Rule 7-9

“specifies that reconsideration may be requested for a manifest failure of the court to consider

material facts or dispositive arguments.” Docket No. 164 at 2. Reddy, however, quotes only part of

the rule, which actually requires a party moving for reconsideration to “specifically show: A

manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were

presented to the Court before” it issued its October 27, 2005 Order. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(3)

(emphasis added). As Reddy’s counsel acknowledges, the Discovery Motion was unopposed, thus

no material facts or dispositive arguments were presented to the Court. Docket No. 164 at 2. 

(Reddy does not explain what compelling reasons, if any, prevented him from opposing the 

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 165 Filed 12/01/05 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

Discovery Motion in the first instance, but only states that “Counsel for defendant . . . failed because

of circumstances to file a timely opposition to the motion.” Id.) 

Because Reddy has not “specifically shown” any ground for reconsidering the October 27,

2005 Order as he must under Local Rule 7-9(b), the Court DENIES Reddy leave to file any such

motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2005 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 165 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 2