1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Louis A. Cardinali, Case No.: 2:16-cv-02046-JAD-NJK

4 Plaintiff Order Granting Motion for 5 v. Reconsideration, Setting Briefing Schedule, and Scheduling Hearing 6 Plusfour, Inc., et al., [ECF No. 211] 7 Defendants

8 In September 2019, I granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Experian 9 Information Solutions, Inc., dismissing Louis Cardinali’s claims for violations of the Fair Credit 10 Reporting Act.1 Because I found that Cardinali’s claims failed as a matter of law, I denied as 11 moot multiple pending motions, including Experian’s motion for monetary sanctions and to 12 initiate contempt proceedings against Haines & Krieger, LLC; David Krieger; and Haines & 13 Krieger’s counsel, Miles N. Clark and Matthew I. Knepper.2 Experian moves for partial 14 reconsideration, arguing that my finding was erroneous because a successful summary-judgment 15 ruling does not moot a sanctions motion seeking compensatory damages.3 Haines & Krieger and 16 their counsel do not oppose Experian’s motion on the merits; instead, they argue that Experian’s 17 motion suffers from supposed technical deficiencies.4 Because I find that denying the sanctions 18 motion was clear error, I grant Experian’s motion for reconsideration and direct Experian to re- 19 urge its request for sanctions consistent with this order. 20 21 1 ECF No. 208. 22 2 Id. at 29–30 (mooting motion for sanctions (ECF No. 190)). 23 3 ECF No. 211 (motion for reconsideration). 4 ECF No. 212 at 4. 1 Discussion 2 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, a court may “relieve a party or its legal 3 representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.”5 A motion for reconsideration is 4 generally appropriate when the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence or has 5 committed clear error, or there is an intervening change in controlling law.6 “A motion for

6 reconsideration is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments;”7 instead, a party 7 seeking reconsideration must present “facts or law of a strongly convincing nature” that provide 8 a “valid reason” why reconsideration is appropriate.8 Experian argues that I committed clear 9 error when I denied its sanctions motion as moot, instead of addressing the merits of its claims. 10 My 2019 order erroneously denied Experian’s sanctions motion. “Even where one issue 11 in a case has been rendered moot, others may remain.”9 As the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly 12 held, a motion for compensatory sanctions, as opposed to coercive sanctions, can survive the end 13 of a dispute.10 So I vacate my summary judgment order insofar as it improperly mooted 14 Experian’s motion for sanctions and will address that motion on the merits.

15 16

17 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 18 6 Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1993). 7 Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A.,

(D. Nev. 2005). 19 8 Frasure v. United States,

(D. Nev. 2003). 20 9 Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2016). 10

(“[T]he justification for this bright-line distinction between compensatory and 21 coercive contempts arises out of their disparate purposes. Once an injunction has been terminated, a court may still award compensation to the plaintiff as a result of injuries caused by 22 its opponent’s contumacy.”); Trans Int’l Airlines, Inc. v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters,

, 956 (9th Cir. 1980), amended (9th Cir. June 2, 1980) (explaining that the “possibility 23 of compensatory damage liability” arising from “civil[-]contempt adjudication” prevented an action from becoming moot). ] But I ask that Experian re-urge its request, given that (1) this case’s posture has changed 2|| dramatically since Experian filed its original sanctions motion—the case has been resolved in Experian’s favor; (2) my summary judgment order mooted pending discovery-order objections, 4! which may bear on Experian’s sanctions motion; and (3) the alleged discovery misconduct that Experian identified may have had limited import to the ultimate disposition of this matter. I direct Experian to quantify its request for compensatory sanctions in the motion, with any necessary supporting documentation, so that the parties may address the reasonableness of the sanctions sought. I also ask that the parties refrain from tit-for-tat exchanges regarding H&K and its counsel’s supposed malfeasance—a simple recitation of the supposed misconduct, with a response that either disputes its accuracy or excuses the behavior, will be more useful. 1] CONCLUSION 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Experian’s motion for partial reconsideration [ECF 13]| No. 211] is GRANTED. The portion of my September 26, 2019, order denying Experian’s motion for sanctions as moot [ECF No. 208] is VACATED. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Experian must file its renewed motion for sanctions 16||by April 9, 2021. Any response and reply must be filed by the deadlines established in Local 17||Rule 7-2(b). If Experian does not file its motion, its request for sanctions will be deemed 18] abandoned and denied with prejudice. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on Experian’s motion will be held on May 21, 2021, at 10:00 am. 21 7b cz 22 US. District Judge J ennifér A. Dorsey March 25, 2021 23