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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Maria Bruner, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

City of Phoenix, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-18-00664-PHX-DJH 

ORDER 

 Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Plaintiffs’ 

Motion to Strike. (Doc. 78).1

 

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare 

circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995); 

Drake v. City of Eloy, 2016 WL 67519, *1 (D. Ariz. 2016). “Reconsideration is appropriate 

if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear 

error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change 

in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court 

“to rethink what the court had already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Defenders of 

Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 

99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an 

insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 

 

1

 Pursuant to Local Rule of Practice of the U.S. District of Arizona (“Local Rule”) 7.2(g), Plaintiffs are not permitted to file a Response without leave of the Court. 
- 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 

1573 (D. Haw. 1988). 

Defendant is asking the Court to reconsider its Order (Doc. 77) striking Defendant’s 

Motion for Sanctions for failing to comply with the Court’s discovery dispute protocol. 

(Doc. 78). Defendant argues that Court should reconsider its Order because its Motion for 

Sanctions is not “a mere discovery dispute” and that “it is seeking relief because Plaintiffs 

have intentionally destroyed and failed to properly preserve relevant, discoverable social 

media evidence.” (Id. at 2). The Court struck Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions because 

the gravamen of the Motion was the production—or lack thereof—of discoverable 

evidence, including Plaintiffs’ “duty of production under the MIDP or Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and 

34.” (Doc. 69 at 6). Therefore, the Court found that the parties needed to comply with the 

Court’s discovery dispute protocol before filing a Motion for Sanctions. Moreover, the 

Court’s Order did not foreclose on Defendant’s ability to file a Motion for Sanctions after 

complying with the Court’s discovery dispute protocol. Accordingly, the Court does not 

find that Defendant provided a sufficient basis for the Court to reconsider its Order. Thus, 

the Court will deny the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration and instruct the parties to 

comply with the Court’s discovery dispute procedure. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration Regarding 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 78) is DENIED. 

Dated this 7th day of May, 2019. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa 

United States District Judge