*1 The former Magistrate Judge in this case issued a discovery order on January 26, 2016 (“Order”). The Order identified specific discovery violations committed by Defendant Tina Coca, and ordered Coca to produce her personal computer and to authorize Plaintiff to obtain documents from four electronic accounts. The Court declined “at this time” to find that Coca and defaulted Defendant Monarch & Associates have waived all privileges as to the documents ordered retrieved from Coca's computer and the electronic accounts. The Court, however, indicated that “the burden of asserting privilege with respect to any such documents appropriately rests on Coca and Monarch.” Addison is to provide notice to Coca and an opportunity to review any documents from the computer and from the accounts obtained. Coca must provide a privilege log identifying any applicable claim of privilege as to such documents, or any applicable privilege claim will be waived. The Order also provides that Plaintiff may notice a further hearing “after its inspection and review of the discovery ordered herein.” (Emphasis added.) Plaintiff may argue that there was spoliation and seek further sanctions.

Plaintiff's Motion seeks an order reversing those portions of the Order inconsistent with the relief sought in Addison's Motion for Sanctions, in particular the Court's ruling on waiver of privilege. Plaintiffs also seeks further orders regarding disqualification, payment of advance costs incurred in filtering privileged documents and requirements for a privilege log. Plaintiff further seeks an ex parte order shortening time to hear her motion.

On February 10, 2016, this case was reassigned to this Court for discovery purposes. The District Court requested this Court to consider the Motion.

Plaintiff styles her Motion as a Motion for Clarification but, to the extent Plaintiff is seeking to reverse the portions of the Order inconsistent with relief earlier sought (i.e., the privilege issue), Plaintiff's Motion is a motion for reconsideration that must be denied. Absent highly unusual circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will not be granted unless there is newly discovered evidence, clear error or a change in the law. Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Local Rule 7–18 repeats these standards and specifically prohibits any repetition of any oral or written argument made in the original motion. Plaintiff does not recognize her motion as one for reconsideration, nor address the standards for it. Plainly, Plaintiff does not meet those standards.

*2 Additionally, Plaintiff's Motion may become moot. Until the documents are produced and Coca has an opportunity to review them and claim privilege, we do not know if there will be any claim of privilege. Presumably, that was the reason the prior Magistrate Judge declined to rule on the privilege issue “at this time.” The Magistrate Judge obviously wanted to address the privilege issue in the context of the specific documents to be produced. The focus now should be on production of the documents identified in the Order.

The Court also DENIES the other relief because Plaintiff should have raised it in her Motion for Sanctions or did and it was not adopted by the prior Magistrate Judge (i.e., another motion for reconsideration.) As for disqualification, Plaintiff's proposed order provided that Coca produce her computer and computer media to Addison and designated representatives. Plaintiff did not assume that the Court would find a waiver of privilege. Plaintiff's proposed order provided for: (1) waiver of privilege, or (2) alternatively, if the Court did not order waiver of privilege, Coca must pay the costs of filtering privileged documents and preparing a privilege log. Thus, Plaintiff failed to address the obvious issue of who would review the documents for privilege. Motions for reconsideration should not be used to raise issues that could have or should have been presented on the original motion. Id.; Local Rule 7–18; see also Bhatnager v. Surrendra Overseas, Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995). Here, the Order specifically authorized Plaintiff to obtain the documents ordered produced and to make the documents available to Coca for privilege review. Plaintiff presumably is capable of retaining an expert or other designated representative to retrieve the documents and present them to Coca, without counsel and Addison seeing them or reviewing them.

The other relief Plaintiff seeks is subject to the same argument. Plaintiff seeks an order that Coca pay the expert in advance. Plaintiff's proposed order, however, provides only that Coca shall bear the costs of filtering out privileged documents, not that they be paid in advance. The Court, moreover, specifically provided that Plaintiff could seek costs incurred in connection with the discovery ordered after the discovery is completed. Plaintiff again is seeking reconsideration of the Order.

Similarly, Plaintiff's request for minimum standards for any privilege log should have been raised in the Motion for Sanctions. The Order provides that if Coca failed to produce a privilege log any applicable claim of privilege is waived. This is exactly the order Plaintiff sought. Any issue of the sufficiency of the privilege log can be raised after production of documents.

Because the Court has concluded that the Motion has no merit and has DENIED it, the Application to Shorten Time on the Motion is DENIED as moot.