Horowitz v. Merz North America, Inc. et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03602

ORDER re {{37}} Joint Discovery Letter filed by Merz North America, Inc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 05/03/2016. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SANAE HOROWITZ, 7 Case No. 15-cv-03602-DMR Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY 9 LETTER MERZ NORTH AMERICA, INC., 10 Re: Dkt. No. 37 Defendant. 11 12 The court has received the parties' joint discovery letter. [Docket No. 37 (Joint Letter).] Northern District of California United States District Court 13 In the letter, Defendant Merz North America, Inc. asks for clarification of a portion of the court's 14 March 24, 2016 order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff Sanae Horowitz's motion to 15 quash various subpoenas to third parties. [Docket No. 31 (Minute Order).] 16 While styled as a motion for clarification, Defendant appears to seek reconsideration of the 17 following portion of the court's order: "Defendant's subpoena to [Plaintiff's former employer] St. 18 Jude Medical is quashed, except that Defendant may obtain documents related to any work 19 accommodation requested by or granted to Plaintiff by St. Jude from January 8, 2014 through June 20 30, 2014." Minute Order. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, a party may seek leave to file a 21 motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order at any time before judgment. Civ. L.R. 7- 22 9(a). A motion for reconsideration may be made on one of three grounds: (1) a material difference 23 in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the court, which, in the exercise of 24 reasonable diligence, the party applying for reconsideration did not know at the time of the order 25 for which reconsideration is sought; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or 26 (3) a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments 27 presented before such order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). The moving party may not reargue any 28 written or oral argument previously asserted to the court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). Whether to grant leave 1 to file a motion for reconsideration under Rule 7-9 is committed to the court's sound discretion. 2 See Montebueno Mktg., Inc. v. Del Monte Corp.—USA, 570 F. App'x 675, 676 (9th Cir. 2014) 3 (citing Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007)). 4 Defendant's motion is procedurally improper, because it did not request leave to file a 5 motion for reconsideration. Moreover, Defendant does not argue that any of the three grounds for 6 reconsideration are present here. Instead, it essentially presents new theories of relevance that it 7 could have presented when the matter was originally briefed and argued. Accordingly, 8 Defendant's motion for reconsideration is denied, except to the extent that Plaintiff has expressed 9 no objection to Defendant obtaining earnings records from St. Jude. The court also notes that 10 Plaintiff has agreed to answer deposition questions regarding any overlap in the time she worked 11 for Defendant and for St. Jude, her earnings at St. Jude, and the accommodations she requested at 12 St. Jude. Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Finally, Defendant asserts that it has learned that a third party agency, Volt Workforce 14 Solutions, may have placed Plaintiff to work at St. Jude. Defendant "requests permission from the 15 Court to seek" documents related to Plaintiff's work at St. Jude, including her employment or 16 independent contractor status, wage history, job performance, termination, and workplace 17 accommodations. Joint Letter at 1. Defendant's request is denied as procedurally improper. If 18 Defendant wishes to obtain discovery from a third party, it may issue a subpoena in accordance 19 with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. To the extent Plaintiff objects, the parties shall comply 20 with the court's Standing Order regarding resolution of discovery disputes. ISTRIC ES D 21 T TC TA 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. O S U ED RT ERED 23 Dated: May 3, 2016 O ORD UNIT IT IS S ______________________________________ 24 R NIA Donna M. Ryu 25 United States Magistrate Judge u a M. Ry NO onn Judge D FO 26 RT LI 27 ER H A N C F 28 D IS T IC T O R 2