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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES MARTINEZ,

NO. CIV. S-04-1446 LKK/PAN

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE

COMPANY; and SAFECO INSURANCE

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

 /

On October 25, 2005, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to

strike defendants’ expert witness report due to defendants’ failure

to disclose the expert witness report in the time required by the

court’s order. Defendants now ask this court to reconsider its

decision. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

“Under the ‘law of the case’ doctrine a court is generally

precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided

by the same court, or a higher court in the identical case.”

United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.

Case 2:04-cv-01446-LKK -EFB Document 31 Filed 12/06/05 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

2

1997)(citing Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 153, 154 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993)). Although motions to reconsider are

directed to the sound discretion of the court, see Kern-Tulare

Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.

Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 824

F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988),

considerations of judicial economy weigh heavily in the process.

Thus, Local Rule 78-230(k) requires that a party seeking

reconsideration of a district court’s order must brief the “new or

different facts or circumstances . . . which . . . were not shown

upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the

motion.” Generally speaking, before reconsideration may be granted

there must be a change in the controlling law or facts, the need

to correct a clear error, or the need to prevent manifest

injustice. See Alexander, 106 F.3d at 876. 

As with motions to alter or amend a judgment made pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a), motions to reconsider are not vehicles

permitting the unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously

presented. See Costello v. United States Government, 765 F. Supp.

1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991). Nor is a motion to reconsider

justified on the basis of new evidence available prior to the

court’s ruling. See Fay Corp. v. BAT Holdings One, Inc., 651 F.

Supp. 307, 309 (W.D. Wash. 1987), aff’d, 896 F.2d 1227 (9th Cir.

1990). Finally, “after thoughts” or “shifting of ground” do not

constitute an appropriate basis for reconsideration. See id.

////

Case 2:04-cv-01446-LKK -EFB Document 31 Filed 12/06/05 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

3

These relatively restrictive standards “reflect[] district courts’

concern for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial

efficiency.” Costello, 765 F. Supp. at 1009.

As these standards demonstrate, defendants must set out either

new information that was not available earlier, a change of law,

or simply clear error. Unfortunately, defendants are unable to

provide sufficient information to satisfy any of the above-listed

criteria for reconsideration. They have not tendered any further

information or suggestion of a change in the law, nor are they able

to show that the court committed clear error in applying Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Although defendants’ motion is denied, it was not frivolous

in light of the difficult situation it creates for their defense

and therefore plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions for the

bringing of a frivolous motion for reconsideration is likewise

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 5, 2005

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01446-LKK -EFB Document 31 Filed 12/06/05 Page 3 of 3