United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (DOCKET NO. 455)
J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the
Court's order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel.
Docket No. 455. The Court has considered Plaintiff's
motion, non-party Snell & Wilmer LLP's
(“Snell”) response, and Plaintiff's reply.
Docket Nos. 455, 460, 462. The Court finds the motion
properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule
78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to
reconsider is DENIED. Docket No. 455.
January 31, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to
compel Snell's response to Plaintiff's subpoena.
Docket No. 447. The Court found that Plaintiff's motion
to compel was untimely under the factors established in
Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. Docket No. 447 at 3-4;
see also 237 F.R.D. 395, 397 (N.D. Tex. 2006). In
the instant motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider
its order denying the motion to compel because “unusual
circumstances” excuse the delay in filing. Docket No.
455 at 3, 9. Plaintiff further submits that the factors
established in Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. weigh in its
favor. Id. at 9-14; Docket No. 462 at 4-5.
for reconsideration are disfavored. Local Rule 59-1(b);
see also Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech.,
Inc., 245 F.R.D. 470, 472 (D. Nev. 2007)
(“Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, to be
used sparingly” (citation and internal quotations
omitted)). The Local Rules provide the applicable standards
in addressing whether the Court should reconsider an
interlocutory order, indicating that reconsideration may be
appropriate if (1) there is newly discovered evidence that
was not available when the original motion or response was
filed, (2) the Court committed clear error or the initial
decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an
intervening change in controlling law. Local Rule 59-1(a).
The party seeking reconsideration bears the burden of
establishing appropriate grounds for that relief. See
ESCO Corp. v. Cashman Equip. Co., 158 F.Supp.3d 1051,
1076 (D. Nev. 2016) (the motion must set forth both (1) a
“valid reason” for reconsideration and (2) facts
or law of a “strongly convincing nature to persuade the
court to reverse its prior decision” (quoting
Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183
(D. Nev. 2003)); see also 389 Orange Street Partners v.
Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (the movant
bears the burden of establishing grounds for
has not shown that reconsideration is appropriate. The gist
of Plaintiff's position is that its motion to compel was
untimely filed because of various delays in responses to its
discovery requests and violations of the Court's orders,
which Plaintiff attributes to Defendants. Docket No. 455 at
10, 12-13. Plaintiff further submits that it can obtain the
requested discovery only from Snell because Defendant GEM, as
well as Defendants Christelle Pigeat and Vincent Tessier,
have proved to be incredible sources. Id. at 11,
response, Snell submits that Plaintiff fails to discuss each
factor established in Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. and,
therefore, cannot show that “unusual
circumstances” exist to reverse the Court's
decision. Docket No. 460 at 4. Snell further submits that
Plaintiff fails to provide “‘[c]hanges in ...
factual circumstances ... or ‘newly discovered evidence
that was not available when the original motion or response
was filed.'” Id. at 5 (internal citations
omitted). Additionally, Snell requests attorneys' fees
incurred in responding to the instant motion, pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(1). Id. at 6-7.
reply, Plaintiff discusses all seven of the Days Inn
Worldwide, Inc. factors and submits that they lean in
its favor, although it submits that a “formulaic
recitation” of each is not required in asking the Court
to reconsider its order. Docket No. 462 at 3. Plaintiff
further submits that attorneys' fees should not be
awarded because it sought the discovery from Snell in good
faith, has “substantial justification and need for the
documents requested in the Subpoena and Notice, ” and
because Snell should have provided the documents when
Plaintiff first requested them from the original Defendants.
Id. at 7-9.
Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of
establishing that appropriate grounds for reconsideration of
the Court's prior order exist. Plaintiff has failed to
establish that newly discovered evidence exists that was not
available when it filed its motion to compel, that the Court
committed clear error or its decision was manifestly unjust,
or that an intervening change in controlling law has
Plaintiffs motion to reconsider the Court's order denying
Plaintiffs motion to compel is DENIED.
Docket No. 455. Further, Snell's request for