(PC) Vaden v. Mayes

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ERNEST LEE VADEN, JR., No. 2:19-cv-2216 TLN CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ROBERT L. MAYES, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 On February 1, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s January 10, 2022 order denying as untimely plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to depose non-parties by written questions pursuant to Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 The court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed ///// In the February 1, 2022 motion, plaintiff also seeks reconsideration of the court’s January 13, 2022 denial of plaintiff’s motion to serve additional interrogatories upon defendant Mayes. In an order issued February 8, 2022, the court did grant plaintiff leave to serve additional interrogatories upon defendant Mayes. Furthermore, plaintiff no longer seeks reconsideration of the January 13, 2022 order in his reply brief concerning the pending motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly, the court considers the motion for reconsideration as to the January 13, 2022 order withdrawn.

1 || clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in | controlling law.” Id. at 1263.

3 The court has reviewed all relevant parts of the record and has determined that the court’s | January 10, 2022 denial of plaintiff's January 3, 2022 motion seeking leave to depose non-parties || by written questions pursuant to Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as untimely is || correct. The court also notes that in his January 3, 2022 motion, plaintiff sought to conduct || depositions by written questions as to three witnesses. Plaintiff has just been given leave to || conduct video depositions with respect to those same three witnesses. ECF No. 97.

9 For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's February 1, 2022 motion || for reconsideration is denied.

11 | Dated: April 14, 2022 / aa I / a Ly a 2 CAROLYN K.DELANEY 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE |} vader216.ex2 28 >