Scalia v. Heritage
Scalia v. Heritage
2020 WL 9173803 (D. Haw. 2020)
April 21, 2020
Porter, Wes R., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court's Order did not address any ESI. The Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration of the April 3 Discovery Order was denied, as the Court found that the Defendants failed to raise a sufficient basis for reconsideration. The declaration of Ruben Richard Chapa, Esq. did not provide a basis for reconsideration either.
Additional Decisions
EUGENE SCALIA, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Plaintiff,
v.
SHARON L. HERITAGE, ET AL., Defendants
v.
SHARON L. HERITAGE, ET AL., Defendants
CIVIL NO. 18-00155 SOM-WRP
United States District Court, D. Hawai‘i
Filed April 21, 2020
Counsel
Elisabeth Nolte, Jing Acosta, Ruben Richard Chapa, U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Solicitor, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.Donald L. Havermann, Pro Hac Vice, Oluwaseun Familoni, Pro Hac Vice, Sean K. McMahan, Pro Hac Vice, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, DC, Jeffrey S. Portnoy, Cades Schutte LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants Sharon L. Heritage, Nichlas L. Saakvitne, a Law Corporation.
David R. Johanson, Pro Hac Vice, Hawkins Parnell & Young LLP, Napa, CA, William M. Harstad, Carlsmith Ball LLP, Honolulu, HI, Douglas A. Rubel, Pro Hac Vice, Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP, Cary, NC, for Defendants Brian J. Bowers, Dexter C. Kubota.
Scott I. Batterman, Robert E. Chapman, Clay Chapman Iwamura Pulice & Nervell, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant Bowers + Kubota Consulting, Inc.
Porter, Wes R., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS BRIAN J. BOWERS AND DEXTER C. KUBOTA'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER REGARDING ITEMS 14-40 AND INVESTIGATION DOCUMENTS RE: DEFENDANTS BRIAN J. BOWERS AND DEXTER C. KUBOTA'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
*1 On April 3, 2020, this Court issued its Order Regarding Items 14-40 and Investigation Documents Re: Defendants Brian J. Bowers and Dexter C. Kubota's Motion to Compel Discovery (April 3 Discovery Order). See ECF No. 184. On April 17, 2020, Defendants Brian J. Bowers and Dexter C. Kubota filed a Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration of the April 3 Discovery Order (Motion for Reconsideration). See ECF Nos. 187, 188. The Motion for Reconsideration is suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule 7.1(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Local Rules).
After careful consideration of the Motion for Reconsideration and the relevant legal authority, the Court DENIES the Motion.
DISCUSSION
A district court “possesses the inherent power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient.” City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2001). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (stating that interlocutory orders “may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.”). The Ninth Circuit has identified three circumstances under which reconsideration is appropriate: (1) the availability of newly discovered evidence; (2) the district court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) an intervening change in controlling law. See Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004). The District of Hawaii has implemented these standards in Local Rule 60.1, which provides that motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders may be brought only upon the following grounds: (a) discovery of new material facts previously not available; (b) intervening change in law; or (c) manifest error of law or fact. See LR 60.1. Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). Whether or not to grant reconsideration is left to the sound discretion of the court. See Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).
Here, Defendants Bowers and Kubota fail to raise a sufficient basis for reconsideration.
First, Defendants Bowers and Kubota argue that reconsideration is appropriate because the Court failed “to articulate its application of the factors set forth in N. Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1122 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (“North Pacifica”) in making its determination” regarding the application of the deliberative process privilege. See ECF No. 188 at 3, 5-11. Notably, Defendants Bowers and Kubota do not argue that the Court applied the incorrect legal standard or that the Court's application was a manifest error of law or fact. Rather, Defendants Bowers and Kubota's argument is that the Court should have articulated its application of the law in more detail. The Court finds that this is not an appropriate basis for reconsideration. In the April 3 Discovery Order, the Court recognized the applicable legal standard, detailed its determinations regarding each of the documents subject to the deliberative process privilege, and expressly determined that Defendants Bowers and Kubota failed to overcome the qualified privilege as to the material at issue. See ECF No. 184. The 32-page April 3 Discovery Order followed two hearings on the Motion to Compel, two previous orders regarding the same discovery material, and the Court's in camera of hundreds of pages of discovery. See ECF Nos. 137, 145, 161, 162, 184. Defendants Bowers and Kubota's arguments that the Court's discussion should have been more detailed does not suggest a manifest error of law or fact, but instead reflects “mere disagreement” with the Court's determination. See Leong, 689 F. Supp. at 1573. Accordingly, Defendants Bowers and Kubota's arguments regarding the application of North Pacifica do not warrant reconsideration of the April 3 Discovery Order.
*2 Second, Defendants Bowers and Kubota argue that reconsideration is appropriate because of new material facts not previously available to the Court compel a finding of bad faith and waiver. See ECF No. 188 at 3, 11-14. Specifically, Defendants Bowers and Kubota contend that reconsideration is required based on the declaration of Ruben Richard Chapa, Esq., counsel for the Secretary, which was provided in support of the Secretary's Opposition to Defendants Bowers and Kubota's Supplemental Motion to Compel (Items 41-3100) and Related Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (Chapa Declaration). See id. Defendants Bowers and Kubota argue that the Chapa Declaration shows that the Secretary improperly asserted the deliberative process privilege as to Items 41-3100. See id. at 11 (quoting the Chapa Declaration). The Court is unpersuaded that the Chapa Declaration provides a basis for reconsideration. The Court's April 3 Discovery Order addressed the disputed discovery Items 14-40. See ECF No. 184. The relevant portion of the Chapa Declaration does not address Items 14-40 but instead addresses Items 41-3100, which the Court will address in its decision on the pending Supplemental Motion to Compel. See ECF No. 181-1 ¶ 6. The Court has allowed the parties to submit additional briefing regarding the issue of bad faith, which will also be addressed in the decision on the pending Supplemental Motion to Compel. See ECF No. 190. The Court finds that reconsideration is not appropriate on this basis because the Chapa Declaration does not address the discovery material that was the subject of the April 3 Discovery Order.
Defendants Bowers and Kubota's Motion to Reconsider Order Regarding Items 14-40 and Investigation Documents Re: Defendants Brian J. Bowers and Dexter C. Kubota's Motion To Compel Discovery is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, APRIL 21, 2020.