Case Name: Rachitha Kasi et al vs Nicholas Gawaldo et al

Case No.: 18CV330619

The motion for reconsideration of the Court’s protective order is DENIED. Not only is the motion not timely under CCP 1008 (alone a basis to deny this motion), but Defendants have not provided any new facts or law in support of their motion.

Despite counsel’s representations to the contrary, Defendants were provided a copy of the Court’s preferred protective order at the outset of the hearing, and were given an opportunity to provide further comment by email, which the Court considered before issuing the final order. Moreover, the Court issued a lengthy tentative ruling prior to the hearing, and indicated the form of protective order that it would consider in that tentative ruling. The Court indicated its disagreement with the proposed forms of protective order that both parties proposed, and advised the parties of the form it would consider. The Court heard extensive argument at the hearing.

“[T]he party seeking reconsideration must provide not only new evidence but also a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time. In short, the moving party’s burden is the same as that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of ‘newly discovered evidence, material for the party making the application, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial.’ [Citation.]” (Blue Mountain Development Co. v. Carville (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1013 [disapproved on other grounds in Passavanti v. Williams (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1602]; see also Baldwin v. Home Sav. of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 [reconsideration on basis of “different law” requires same showing of diligence as required for reconsideration on basis of “different facts”].)

The only alleged new or different facts are the submission (by attachment to the moving papers only) of redacted versions of certain pleadings. The Court does not consider compliance with an order to equate to new or different facts to support reconsideration of an order, and the arguments made yet again in the moving papers continue to support the issuance of a confidentiality order as Defendants continue to argue that they have the right to share confidential information.

The Court finds no error in the orders it issued that would result in a modified order, and the Court chooses not to reconsider the orders on its own motion. No caselaw supports Defendants’ claims that an order to protect confidential information produced by an opponent in litigation violates the First Amendment or equates to a prior restraint, nor are any other constitutional provisions implicated. These same arguments were raised by the Defendants at the hearing, and so do not raise new or different law or facts.

The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.