ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE COURT'S ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7-17 (DOCKET NO. 44); VACATING JULY 7, 2023 HEARING PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND L.R. 7-15; AND DENYING PARTIES REQUEST TO APPEAR REMOTELY AS MOOT (DOCKET NOS. 44, 52, 53, 55)

*1 On June 6, 2023, BMW of North America, LLC (“Defendant”) filed the instant Motion for Relief from the Court's Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery, Pursuant to Local Rule 7-17 (“Motion for Relief”). (Docket No. 44). On June 16, 2023, Jesse Santos Teixeira (“Plaintiff”) filed its opposition to the Defendant's Motion for Relief. (Pl.'s Opposition, Docket No. 49). On June 23, 2023, Defendant filed its reply to Plaintiff's opposition. (Def.'s Reply, Docket No. 51). This matter is fully briefed.

Neither party filed a written request for oral argument stating than an attorney with five years or less of experience would be arguing the matter. See Standing Order for Newly Assigned Civil Cases at 15. Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Rule 7-15, the Court has deemed this matter suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for July 7, 2023 at 1:00 p.m. is VACATED. Plaintiff (Docket Nos. 52 and 53) and Defendant's (Docket No. 55) Request to Appear Remotely is therefore DENIED as moot.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Relief.

I. Background

Plaintiff brings this “lemon law” action related to his lease of a 2020 BMW X5 M vehicle (the “Vehicle”). (Compl., Docket No. 1, Exh. A). Plaintiff alleges two causes of action against Defendant under California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act: (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and (2) breach of express warranty. (Id.). In general, the issues in this matter are the alleged defects in the Vehicle that were not reasonably repaired and whether the Vehicle is fit for the ordinary purposes for which vehicles are used. (Docket No. 44 at 2).

On March 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Written Discovery Responses and Production (“Motion to Compel”) before Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi seeking additional written discovery responses from Defendant. (Mot. to Compel, Docket No. 15). Plaintiff claimed that Defendant failed to produce relevant discovery such as records related to repairs of the Vehicle. (Decl. of Stephen Parnell ISO Plaintiff's Portion of Joint Stipulation of the Parties Re: Pl.'s Mot. to Compel, Docket No. 15-2 ¶¶ 33–39). As a result of the alleged discovery deficiencies, Plaintiff served written discovery requests, which included Requests for Production, Interrogatories, and Requests for Admission. (Id. ¶¶ 8–12, 47–50, 82). The parties' filings related to the Motion to Compel included various factual disputes such as the adequacy of document productions and failed attempts to meet and confer between parties. (See, e.g., Docket Nos. 15 ¶¶ 40–46, 17, 18). Defendant claimed that it was continuing to comply with discovery requests despite the requests being “grossly disproportional” to the needs of the case. (Docket No. 17 at 3). Defendant also alleged that Plaintiff's counsel reneged on an agreement to withdraw Plaintiff's Motion to Compel “[a]t the final hour.” (Id.).

*2 On April 24, 2023, after consideration of all submissions from both parties, Judge Rocconi issued an order (the “Motion to Compel Order”) granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. (Docket No. 22). The Motion to Compel Order required Defendant to serve responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production, Interrogatories, and Admissions, and produce additional responsive documents by May 5, 2023. (Id.). Defendant was also required to pay Plaintiff's reasonable expenses incurred in bringing its Motion to Compel. (Id.).

On May 1, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Relief (the “First Motion for Relief”) seeking relief from the Motion to Compel order. (Docket No. 24). Defendant filed this motion before Judge Andre Birotte Jr., the court previously assigned to this case. (Id.). The First Motion for Relief contained several deficiencies including violating Judge Birotte's Standing Orders related to hearing dates. (Docket No. 25). On May 3, 2023, Judge Birotte ordered that the First Motion for Relief be stricken from the docket because Defendant “requests an informal discovery conference about the issues raised in the motion. A request for an informal discovery conference should be made to Magistrate Judge Rocconi.” (Id.).

On May 11, 2023, the parties jointly requested an informal discovery conference be scheduled before Judge Rocconi, which was set for May 24, 2023. (Docket No. 31).

On May 19, 2023, pursuant to an Order of the Chief Judge, this case was reassigned to Judge Hsu. (Docket No. 33).

On May 24, 2023, the parties attended the above-mentioned informal discovery conference. (Docket No. 37). Defendant claims that the scope of Judge Rocconi's Motion to Compel Order was not discussed at the conference. (Docket No. 51). Defendant argues that it did not refile its May 1, 2023, motion because it “mistakenly believed that the scope of the Motion to Compel Order would be discussed at the Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) on May 24, 2023, based on the Order Striking the Motion for Relief for ‘Deficiencies.’ ” (Docket No. 51 at 3). Notably, according to Defendant, the purpose of the conference was to discuss other discovery disputes such as the continuation of Plaintiff's 30(b)(6) depositions. (See Declaration of Stephen Parnell ISO Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant BMW of North America LLC's Motion for Relief (“Parnell Decl.”), Docket No. 49-1 ¶¶ 53–69; see also Minute Order re Motion for Sanctions, Docket No. 48).

On June 2, 2023, Defendant filed what appears to be the same Motion for Relief before the Court. (Docket No. 40). That motion contained several deficiencies including failing to select the correct filing event and hearing date pursuant to the Court's Standing Order. (Docket No. 41). On June 7, 2023, Defendant withdrew its motion. (Docket No. 45).

Defendant now brings the instant Motion before the Court pursuant to Local Rule 7-17 to seek relief from Magistrate Judge Rocconi's April 24, 2023, Motion to Compel Order. (Docket No. 44 at 3).

II. Legal Standard

Local Rule 7-17 entitled “Resubmission of Motions Previously Acted Upon” states as follows:

If any motion, application or petition has been made to any judge of this Court and has been denied in whole or in part or has been granted conditionally or on terms, any subsequent motion for the same relief in whole or in part, whether upon the same or any allegedly different state of facts, shall be presented to the same judge whenever possible. If presented to a different judge, it shall be the duty of the moving party to file and serve a declaration setting forth the material facts and circumstances as to each prior motion, including the date and judge involved in the prior motion, the ruling, decision, or order made, and the new or different facts or circumstances claimed to warrant relief and why such facts or circumstances were not shown to the judge who ruled on the motion. Any failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall be the basis for setting aside any order made on such subsequent motion, either sua sponte or on motion or application, and the offending party or attorney may be subject to the sanctions provided by L.R. 83-7.

*3 Inherent in this rule is that a party moving for relief under this rule seeks “that which [they have] already been denied.” Sattiewhite v. Davis, 2016 WL 11755497, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2016) (quoting C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-17) (applying Local Rule 7-17 to motion for reconsideration).

III. Discussion

Defendant alleges that it has grounds to bring the Motion for Relief for the following four reasons: “(i) [Defendant] reasonably complied with its discovery obligations; (ii) [Defendant] met and conferred in good faith to address Plaintiff's Objections to its Responses and Document Production; (iii) [Defendant] was unable to file a meaningful substantive Opposition to the Motion to Compel, having reasonably relied on Plaintiff's representation that the Motion was being withdrawn; (iv) The Discovery Order is onerous and could not reasonably be complied with and certainly not within the time period ordered by the Court.” (Docket No. 51 at 2).

A. Local Rule 7-17's Applicability

As an initial matter, the Court must determine if Local Rule 7-17 authorizes Defendant's Motion for Relief. Defendant argues that, because its prior attempt to file the instant motion was stricken by the Court, it is permitted to bring the instant matter under Local Rule 7-17. (Docket No. 51 at 2). Courts in this district have recognized Local Rule 7-17 applies “where a court has denied a motion and a party files a subsequent motion for the same relief, whether in whole or in part.” Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles, No. CV0508818BROFMOX, 2015 WL 12659936, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2015) (finding that Local Rule 7-17 applied because the instant request sought the same relief as previous request); compare with Thomson v. HMC Grp., No. CV1303273DMGVBKX, 2014 WL 12589313, at *2 n.2 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2014) (finding Local Rule 7-17 inapplicable because defendants in that matter did not bring motion arguing for dismissal on the same basis as before).

Defendant improperly brings this Motion for Relief under Local Rule 7-17. The Court agrees with Plaintiff's interpretation of Local Rule 7-17 as a restrictive, rather than permissive rule. (Docket No. 49 at 4); see also AmeriColor Corp. v. Kosto Food Prod. Co., No. SACV1600029CJCKESX, 2016 WL 10576634, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2016) (“Local Rule 7-17 is an administrative rule which sensibly provides that subsequent motions for relief that has already been denied should be made to the judge who denied the relief.”). Local Rule 7-17 only places additional requirements on the filing of subsequent motions for the same relief; it is Local Rule 7-18 that authorizes motions for reconsideration of a previous order. C.D. Cal. L.R.s 7-17 and 7-18. Furthermore, under Local Rule 7-17, parties are required to file any “subsequent motion for the same relief” before the “same judge whenever possible.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-17.

Here, Defendant, without explanation or justification, chose not to file this Motion in the first instance before Judge Rocconi, who issued the April 24, 2023, Motion to Compel Order from which Defendant now seeks relief. (Docket No. 22). Instead, Defendant simply regurgitates the same arguments it made in its briefs related to the Motion to Compel Order before Judge Rocconi, without arguing any manner in which Judge Rocconi may have erred. This is attempt to simply re-litigate the same issues before this Court is not permissible.[1] Defendant has failed to present a persuasive argument that Judge Rocconi legally erred in her assessment of the Motion; it simply disagrees with the result. Given that Defendant's motion should have been brought before Judge Rocconi under Local Rule 7-18, the Court need not reach an analysis of the merits of the Motion.[2]

B. Timeliness under Local Rule 7-18

*4 Even if the Court were to evaluate Defendant's Motion under Local Rule 7-18, it fails because it is untimely. Defendant raised for the first time in its Reply brief the argument that, even if the court denies its motion under Local Rule 7-17, it still has a basis for relief under Local Rule 7-18. (Docket No. 51 at 4–5). Local Rule 7-18 clearly states “[a]bsent good cause shown, any motion for reconsideration must be filed no later than 14 days after entry of the Order that is the subject of the motion or application.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18. Defendant filed the instant Motion on June 6, 2023, which is approximately 63 days after the Motion to Compel Order, dated April 24, 2023. (Docket No. 22). Defendant argues that its application is timely because its initial attempt to file for relief on May 1, 2023 (seven days after the Motion to Compel order), was filed in “good faith” and was only stricken by the Court for “being deficient.” (Docket No. 51 at 5–6). Further, Defendant argues that it believed “in good faith that the issues identified in its initial timely filing were to be addressed at the May 24, 2023, IDC and/or also at the June 7, 2023, hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions.” (Docket No. 51 at 5). Defendant cites no authority for its proposition that its “good faith” mistake demonstrates good cause or excuses Defendant's misapplication of the Local Rules. On the contrary the Court finds no good cause to excuse or reward misapplication of the Court's rules, which are publicly available and required reading for practicing in this Court, under any circumstances.[3]

Moreover, Defendant's “good faith” mistake argument is illogical because both the May 24, 2023, informal discovery conference and June 7, 2023, hearing on Plaintiff's Motions on Sanctions covered completely different topics. (See Docket No. 48 at 4) (“On May 24, 2023, the Court held an informal discovery conference addressing the other discovery issues, but declined to entertain arguments related to the Motion for Sanctions, which was already scheduled for June 7, 2023, or arguments related to matters outside the scope of the request for the conference, including any hypothetical motion for reconsideration of the April 24 order.”). Given that the Defendant's claim under Local Rule 7-18 is untimely, the Court declines to analyze the merits of Defendant's claim under this rule.

IV. Conclusion

Defendant's motion, while titled a “Motion for Relief,' is in fact an untimely motion for reconsideration, not filed with the original judge and lacking in new facts, asserted legal error, or justification for being filed with a different judge. It is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

[1]

Furthermore, much of Defendant's briefing in the instant matter raises claims of Plaintiff's alleged “gamesmanship” and makes ad hominin attacks aimed at Plaintiff's counsel. The Court reminds Defendant's counsel that it must adhere to the Court's Standing Orders and the Central District's Civility and Professionalism Guidelines—wholly irrelevant ad hominin attacks on opposing counsel will not be tolerated. See, e.g., Standing Order For Newly Assigned Cases ¶ 6. These types of attacks are wholly unpersuasive; the rule in this Court is the same as when writing a movie script: “Show, don't tell.”

[2]

Even if the Court were to evaluate the merits of Defendant's claims, Defendant still fails to satisfy its burden for relief under Local Rule 7-17 because defendant raises no “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to warrant relief.” C.D. Cal L.R. 7-17. More importantly, Defendant fails to proffer “why such facts or circumstances were not shown to the judge who ruled on the motion.” Id. Defendant simply restates the same claims that Judge Rocconi considered in deciding the Motion to Compel Order. See also Via Waves Comm'ns, LLC v. ARC Phone Canada, Inc., 2004 WL 5486633, at *8 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (denying motion and recognizing non-moving party's argument that motion should be denied “pursuant to Local Rule 7-17, which prohibits reconsideration of arguments made in support of an original motion because defendants' motion ... repeats the same argument that was overruled in the Court's earlier order”).

[3]

Indeed, this is not Defendant's first time misapplying the Local Rules. As Judge Rocconi stated in her minute order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, dated June 8, 2023, “Defendant appears to continuously misunderstand the Local Rules and mechanisms of this Court; though Defendant should not be rewarded for any ignorance of the Local Rules and procedures, there is an important distinction between negligence and bad faith in deciding whether to impose severe sanctions.” (Docket No. 48 at 6).

Teixeira v. BMW of N. Am., LLC

Citation: 2023 WL 6194169 (C.D. Cal. 2023)

Summary: The court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and ordered Defendant to produce ESI related to repairs of the Vehicle, requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for admission. The court also ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff's reasonable expenses incurred in bringing its Motion to Compel. The ESI is important as it provides evidence of the alleged defects in the Vehicle.

Court: United States District Court, C.D. California

Date decided: July 3, 2023

Judge: Hsu, Wesley L

JESSE SANTOS TEIXEIRA, an individual, Plaintiff, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants Case No. 2:22-cv-02338-WLH-MARx United States District Court, C.D. California Filed July 03, 2023 Counsel Stephen Parnell, Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, APC, Encino, CA, Adam Martin Zolonz, Jeffrey A. Zolonz, Law Offices of Adam Zolonz APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff. Adam B. Edel, Kate S. Lehrman, Jacqueline Bruce Chinery, Andrew K. Stefatos, Lehrman Villegas Chinery and Douglas LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants. Hsu, Wesley L, United States District Judge ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE COURT'S ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7-17 (DOCKET NO. 44); VACATING JULY 7, 2023 HEARING PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND L.R. 7-15; AND DENYING PARTIES REQUEST TO APPEAR REMOTELY AS MOOT (DOCKET NOS. 44, 52, 53, 55) *1 On June 6, 2023, BMW of North America, LLC (“Defendant”) filed the instant Motion for Relief from the Court's Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery, Pursuant to Local Rule 7-17 (“Motion for Relief”). (Docket No. 44). On June 16, 2023, Jesse Santos Teixeira (“Plaintiff”) filed its opposition to the Defendant's Motion for Relief. (Pl.'s Opposition, Docket No. 49). On June 23, 2023, Defendant filed its reply to Plaintiff's opposition. (Def.'s Reply, Docket No. 51). This matter is fully briefed. Neither party filed a written request for oral argument stating than an attorney with five years or less of experience would be arguing the matter. See Standing Order for Newly Assigned Civil Cases at 15. Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Rule 7-15, the Court has deemed this matter suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for July 7, 2023 at 1:00 p.m. is VACATED. Plaintiff (Docket Nos. 52 and 53) and Defendant's (Docket No. 55) Request to Appear Remotely is therefore DENIED as moot. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Relief. I. Background Plaintiff brings this “lemon law” action related to his lease of a 2020 BMW X5 M vehicle (the “Vehicle”). (Compl., Docket No. 1, Exh. A). Plaintiff alleges two causes of action against Defendant under California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act: (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and (2) breach of express warranty. (Id.). In general, the issues in this matter are the alleged defects in the Vehicle that were not reasonably repaired and whether the Vehicle is fit for the ordinary purposes for which vehicles are used. (Docket No. 44 at 2). On March 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Written Discovery Responses and Production (“Motion to Compel”) before Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi seeking additional written discovery responses from Defendant. (Mot. to Compel, Docket No. 15). Plaintiff claimed that Defendant failed to produce relevant discovery such as records related to repairs of the Vehicle. (Decl. of Stephen Parnell ISO Plaintiff's Portion of Joint Stipulation of the Parties Re: Pl.'s Mot. to Compel, Docket No. 15-2 ¶¶ 33–39). As a result of the alleged discovery deficiencies, Plaintiff served written discovery requests, which included Requests for Production, Interrogatories, and Requests for Admission. (Id. ¶¶ 8–12, 47–50, 82). The parties' filings related to the Motion to Compel included various factual disputes such as the adequacy of document productions and failed attempts to meet and confer between parties. (See, e.g., Docket Nos. 15 ¶¶ 40–46, 17, 18). Defendant claimed that it was continuing to comply with discovery requests despite the requests being “grossly disproportional” to the needs of the case. (Docket No. 17 at 3). Defendant also alleged that Plaintiff's counsel reneged on an agreement to withdraw Plaintiff's Motion to Compel “[a]t the final hour.” (Id.). *2 On April 24, 2023, after consideration of all submissions from both parties, Judge Rocconi issued an order (the “Motion to Compel Order”) granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. (Docket No. 22). The Motion to Compel Order required Defendant to serve responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production, Interrogatories, and Admissions, and produce additional responsive documents by May 5, 2023. (Id.). Defendant was also required to pay Plaintiff's reasonable expenses incurred in bringing its Motion to Compel. (Id.). On May 1, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Relief (the “First Motion for Relief”) seeking relief from the Motion to Compel order. (Docket No. 24). Defendant filed this motion before Judge Andre Birotte Jr., the court previously assigned to this case. (Id.). The First Motion for Relief contained several deficiencies including violating Judge Birotte's Standing Orders related to hearing dates. (Docket No. 25). On May 3, 2023, Judge Birotte ordered that the First Motion for Relief be stricken from the docket because Defendant “requests an informal discovery conference about the issues raised in the motion. A request for an informal discovery conference should be made to Magistrate Judge Rocconi.” (Id.). On May 11, 2023, the parties jointly requested an informal discovery conference be scheduled before Judge Rocconi, which was set for May 24, 2023. (Docket No. 31). On May 19, 2023, pursuant to an Order of the Chief Judge, this case was reassigned to Judge Hsu. (Docket No. 33). On May 24, 2023, the parties attended the above-mentioned informal discovery conference. (Docket No. 37). Defendant claims that the scope of Judge Rocconi's Motion to Compel Order was not discussed at the conference. (Docket No. 51). Defendant argues that it did not refile its May 1, 2023, motion because it “mistakenly believed that the scope of the Motion to Compel Order would be discussed at the Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) on May 24, 2023, based on the Order Striking the Motion for Relief for ‘Deficiencies.’ ” (Docket No. 51 at 3). Notably, according to Defendant, the purpose of the conference was to discuss other discovery disputes such as the continuation of Plaintiff's 30(b)(6) depositions. (See Declaration of Stephen Parnell ISO Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant BMW of North America LLC's Motion for Relief (“Parnell Decl.”), Docket No. 49-1 ¶¶ 53–69; see also Minute Order re Motion for Sanctions, Docket No. 48). On June 2, 2023, Defendant filed what appears to be the same Motion for Relief before the Court. (Docket No. 40). That motion contained several deficiencies including failing to select the correct filing event and hearing date pursuant to the Court's Standing Order. (Docket No. 41). On June 7, 2023, Defendant withdrew its motion. (Docket No. 45). Defendant now brings the instant Motion before the Court pursuant to Local Rule 7-17 to seek relief from Magistrate Judge Rocconi's April 24, 2023, Motion to Compel Order. (Docket No. 44 at 3). II. Legal Standard Local Rule 7-17 entitled “Resubmission of Motions Previously Acted Upon” states as follows: If any motion, application or petition has been made to any judge of this Court and has been denied in whole or in part or has been granted conditionally or on terms, any subsequent motion for the same relief in whole or in part, whether upon the same or any allegedly different state of facts, shall be presented to the same judge whenever possible. If presented to a different judge, it shall be the duty of the moving party to file and serve a declaration setting forth the material facts and circumstances as to each prior motion, including the date and judge involved in the prior motion, the ruling, decision, or order made, and the new or different facts or circumstances claimed to warrant relief and why such facts or circumstances were not shown to the judge who ruled on the motion. Any failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall be the basis for setting aside any order made on such subsequent motion, either sua sponte or on motion or application, and the offending party or attorney may be subject to the sanctions provided by L.R. 83-7. *3 Inherent in this rule is that a party moving for relief under this rule seeks “that which [they have] already been denied.” Sattiewhite v. Davis, 2016 WL 11755497, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2016) (quoting C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-17) (applying Local Rule 7-17 to motion for reconsideration). III. Discussion Defendant alleges that it has grounds to bring the Motion for Relief for the following four reasons: “(i) [Defendant] reasonably complied with its discovery obligations; (ii) [Defendant] met and conferred in good faith to address Plaintiff's Objections to its Responses and Document Production; (iii) [Defendant] was unable to file a meaningful substantive Opposition to the Motion to Compel, having reasonably relied on Plaintiff's representation that the Motion was being withdrawn; (iv) The Discovery Order is onerous and could not reasonably be complied with and certainly not within the time period ordered by the Court.” (Docket No. 51 at 2). A. Local Rule 7-17's Applicability As an initial matter, the Court must determine if Local Rule 7-17 authorizes Defendant's Motion for Relief. Defendant argues that, because its prior attempt to file the instant motion was stricken by the Court, it is permitted to bring the instant matter under Local Rule 7-17. (Docket No. 51 at 2). Courts in this district have recognized Local Rule 7-17 applies “where a court has denied a motion and a party files a subsequent motion for the same relief, whether in whole or in part.” Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles, No. CV0508818BROFMOX, 2015 WL 12659936, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2015) (finding that Local Rule 7-17 applied because the instant request sought the same relief as previous request); compare with Thomson v. HMC Grp., No. CV1303273DMGVBKX, 2014 WL 12589313, at *2 n.2 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2014) (finding Local Rule 7-17 inapplicable because defendants in that matter did not bring motion arguing for dismissal on the same basis as before). Defendant improperly brings this Motion for Relief under Local Rule 7-17. The Court agrees with Plaintiff's interpretation of Local Rule 7-17 as a restrictive, rather than permissive rule. (Docket No. 49 at 4); see also AmeriColor Corp. v. Kosto Food Prod. Co., No. SACV1600029CJCKESX, 2016 WL 10576634, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2016) (“Local Rule 7-17 is an administrative rule which sensibly provides that subsequent motions for relief that has already been denied should be made to the judge who denied the relief.”). Local Rule 7-17 only places additional requirements on the filing of subsequent motions for the same relief; it is Local Rule 7-18 that authorizes motions for reconsideration of a previous order. C.D. Cal. L.R.s 7-17 and 7-18. Furthermore, under Local Rule 7-17, parties are required to file any “subsequent motion for the same relief” before the “same judge whenever possible.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-17. Here, Defendant, without explanation or justification, chose not to file this Motion in the first instance before Judge Rocconi, who issued the April 24, 2023, Motion to Compel Order from which Defendant now seeks relief. (Docket No. 22). Instead, Defendant simply regurgitates the same arguments it made in its briefs related to the Motion to Compel Order before Judge Rocconi, without arguing any manner in which Judge Rocconi may have erred. This is attempt to simply re-litigate the same issues before this Court is not permissible.[1] Defendant has failed to present a persuasive argument that Judge Rocconi legally erred in her assessment of the Motion; it simply disagrees with the result. Given that Defendant's motion should have been brought before Judge Rocconi under Local Rule 7-18, the Court need not reach an analysis of the merits of the Motion.[2] B. Timeliness under Local Rule 7-18 *4 Even if the Court were to evaluate Defendant's Motion under Local Rule 7-18, it fails because it is untimely. Defendant raised for the first time in its Reply brief the argument that, even if the court denies its motion under Local Rule 7-17, it still has a basis for relief under Local Rule 7-18. (Docket No. 51 at 4–5). Local Rule 7-18 clearly states “[a]bsent good cause shown, any motion for reconsideration must be filed no later than 14 days after entry of the Order that is the subject of the motion or application.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18. Defendant filed the instant Motion on June 6, 2023, which is approximately 63 days after the Motion to Compel Order, dated April 24, 2023. (Docket No. 22). Defendant argues that its application is timely because its initial attempt to file for relief on May 1, 2023 (seven days after the Motion to Compel order), was filed in “good faith” and was only stricken by the Court for “being deficient.” (Docket No. 51 at 5–6). Further, Defendant argues that it believed “in good faith that the issues identified in its initial timely filing were to be addressed at the May 24, 2023, IDC and/or also at the June 7, 2023, hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions.” (Docket No. 51 at 5). Defendant cites no authority for its proposition that its “good faith” mistake demonstrates good cause or excuses Defendant's misapplication of the Local Rules. On the contrary the Court finds no good cause to excuse or reward misapplication of the Court's rules, which are publicly available and required reading for practicing in this Court, under any circumstances.[3] Moreover, Defendant's “good faith” mistake argument is illogical because both the May 24, 2023, informal discovery conference and June 7, 2023, hearing on Plaintiff's Motions on Sanctions covered completely different topics. (See Docket No. 48 at 4) (“On May 24, 2023, the Court held an informal discovery conference addressing the other discovery issues, but declined to entertain arguments related to the Motion for Sanctions, which was already scheduled for June 7, 2023, or arguments related to matters outside the scope of the request for the conference, including any hypothetical motion for reconsideration of the April 24 order.”). Given that the Defendant's claim under Local Rule 7-18 is untimely, the Court declines to analyze the merits of Defendant's claim under this rule. IV. Conclusion Defendant's motion, while titled a “Motion for Relief,' is in fact an untimely motion for reconsideration, not filed with the original judge and lacking in new facts, asserted legal error, or justification for being filed with a different judge. It is therefore DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] Furthermore, much of Defendant's briefing in the instant matter raises claims of Plaintiff's alleged “gamesmanship” and makes ad hominin attacks aimed at Plaintiff's counsel. The Court reminds Defendant's counsel that it must adhere to the Court's Standing Orders and the Central District's Civility and Professionalism Guidelines—wholly irrelevant ad hominin attacks on opposing counsel will not be tolerated. See, e.g., Standing Order For Newly Assigned Cases ¶ 6. These types of attacks are wholly unpersuasive; the rule in this Court is the same as when writing a movie script: “Show, don't tell.” [2] Even if the Court were to evaluate the merits of Defendant's claims, Defendant still fails to satisfy its burden for relief under Local Rule 7-17 because defendant raises no “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to warrant relief.” C.D. Cal L.R. 7-17. More importantly, Defendant fails to proffer “why such facts or circumstances were not shown to the judge who ruled on the motion.” Id. Defendant simply restates the same claims that Judge Rocconi considered in deciding the Motion to Compel Order. See also Via Waves Comm'ns, LLC v. ARC Phone Canada, Inc., 2004 WL 5486633, at *8 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (denying motion and recognizing non-moving party's argument that motion should be denied “pursuant to Local Rule 7-17, which prohibits reconsideration of arguments made in support of an original motion because defendants' motion ... repeats the same argument that was overruled in the Court's earlier order”). [3] Indeed, this is not Defendant's first time misapplying the Local Rules. As Judge Rocconi stated in her minute order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, dated June 8, 2023, “Defendant appears to continuously misunderstand the Local Rules and mechanisms of this Court; though Defendant should not be rewarded for any ignorance of the Local Rules and procedures, there is an important distinction between negligence and bad faith in deciding whether to impose severe sanctions.” (Docket No. 48 at 6).