Case 8:16-cv-00591-SVW-PLA Document 43 Filed 02/27/17 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:471

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

Case No.: SA CV 16-591-SVW (PLAx) Date: February 27, 2017

Title: Alexa Curtin v. County of Orange, et al.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PAUL L. ABRAMS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Christianna Howard N/A N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT(S):

NONE NONE

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)

On February 21, 2017, plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel defendants responses to inspection demands
(Motion or Mot.), setting the hearing on the Motion for March 14, 2017. (ECF No. 37). Concurrently, the
parties filed a Stipulation, in which they agreed to have the Motion heard on March 7, 2017, one week earlier,
[i]n light of the conflicting schedules of the parties respective counsel. (Stip. at 2). On February 22, 2017,
the Court denied the parties Stipulation to have plaintiffs Motion to Compel heard on shortened time, finding
that the parties failed to demonstrate good cause to have the Motion heard, contrary to the Local Rules, two
weeks, instead of three weeks, from the filing date. (ECF No. 40).

On February 23, 2017, the parties filed an Amended Stipulation to have plaintiffs Motion to Compel heard on
shortened time. (ECF No. 41). In the Amended Stipulation they provided additional details as to counsels
conflicting schedules, including defendants counsels unavailability on March 14, 2017, and March 21, 2017,
as well as the fact that in light of the April 25, 2017, trial date, plaintiffs counsel is not willing to have the
Motion heard on March 28, 2017, or any later date. (Am. Stip. 3-7).

The Court construes the parties Amended Stipulation as a request for reconsideration (Request) of the Courts
February 22, 2017, Order.

Under Local Rule 7-18, a motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made only on the
following grounds: (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision
that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration
at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the
time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court
before such decision.

CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2

 Case 8:16-cv-00591-SVW-PLA Document 43 Filed 02/27/17 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:472

The parties Request fails to present any evidence or argument that would satisfy any of the grounds set forth
in Local Rule 7-18. Indeed, even if the additional details provided in the Request had been included in the
original Stipulation, the result would have been the same.

The Request for reconsideration (ECF No. 41) is thus denied.

cc: Counsel of Record

Initials of Deputy Clerk ch

CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2