01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RICHARD R. SAINTCALLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O L. RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0040-MJP-MAT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of his motion

for leave to serve defendants with a revised set of interrogatories. The Court, having reviewed

plaintiff's motion, and the balance of the record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 26) is DENIED. On March 17,

2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to serve defendants with a revised first set of

interrogatories. Plaintiff explained in that motion that defendants had objected to his original

interrogatories because he had exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories allowable under

the discovery rules, and because he failed to sign the interrogatories. Defendants, in their response

to that motion, argued that plaintiff’s request was moot because they had already answered the

interrogatories. Based on defendants’ representation that they had already answered the

interrogatories, this Court denied as moot plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve defendants with a

Case 2:06-cv-00040-MJP Document 32 Filed 05/23/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

PAGE -2

revised first set of interrogatories.

Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s prior ruling pursuant to Local Rule CR

7(h). He explains in his motion for reconsideration that it was not his intention to serve defendants

with actual modified interrogatories which would require answers from defendants, it was merely

his intention to provide defendants with a signed version of the interrogatories to prevent the

interrogatories from being stricken at a later date.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only in limited

circumstances. The Court will ordinarily deny motions for reconsideration “in the absence of a

showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which

could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rule CR

7(h)(1). Plaintiff has offered nothing by way of evidence or argument to persuade this Court that

its prior ruling was erroneous. More importantly, the Court notes that plaintiff’s instant motion

is unnecessary. Plaintiff does not require the Court’s permission to correct the particular

procedural error at issue here. If plaintiff wishes to send defendants a signed version of his

interrogatories together with an explanation as to why he is taking this step, that is a decision

which rests entirely with him and need not involve the Court.

(2) The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for defendants, and

to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman.

DATED this 23rd day of May, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00040-MJP Document 32 Filed 05/23/06 Page 2 of 2