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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

KEITH L. NASH,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5127 RJB/KLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge

Karen L. Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Before the

Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of his motion to compel. (Dkt. #

107). Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that it should be denied. 

DISCUSSION

On March 28, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (Dkt. # 102). The 

motion was denied, in large part, because Plaintiff failed to attach the specific requests he wished the

Court to review. (Id.) Based on the papers submitted, the Court could have assumed that the

Plaintiff’s motion was limited to RFP Nos. 7 and 12, but it declined to do so. (Id.).

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will ordinarily be denied in the “absence of a

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 116 Filed 05/14/07 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER - 2

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

not have been brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rule CR

7(h)(1). 

Plaintiff has identified no error in the Court’s order, nor presented any new facts or legal

authority that suggest reconsideration is appropriate. Plaintiff complains again that the Defendants’

response to his motion to compel was not timely and that the Clerk erred in posting the noting date. 

However, the motion to compel was incorrectly noted by Plaintiff when he filed the motion. It was

correctly noted by the Clerk for March 2, 2007. Defendants’ response was filed on February 23,

2007. (Id. at n. 1). Plaintiff now confirms that his discovery requests are limited to information

regarding Defendants who have been penalized or had criminal complaints filed against them and to

responses to discovery requests sent to Defendant Elaine Mortimeyer. (Dkt. # 107). 

Plaintiff’s claims relate to access to his legal materials and his ability to have his legal mail

processed. (Dkt. # 92). Thus, Defendants submit that none of the information sought by Plaintiff is

relevant to his pending lawsuit and the probative value of the information sought is substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and is inadmissible character evidence. (Id.). The

Court agrees. In addition, it appears that Plaintiff received Defendant Mortimeyer’s answers to his

discovery requests, but disagrees with defense counsel as to whether Defendant Mortimeyer’s

signature was required and whether the responses were timely provided. (Dkt. # 91, Exh. 1). Here

again, without the benefit of the particular discovery at issue, the Court is left to guess at the true

dispute and it declines to do so. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 107) is DENIED. 

DATED this 11th day of May, 2007.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 116 Filed 05/14/07 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER - 3

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 116 Filed 05/14/07 Page 3 of 3