SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

1. Background Facts 

Plaintiff David Takeda (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Defendant”) for injuries Plaintiff sustained after allegedly being struck by an industrial caddy.   

On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents, set one (“RPDs”), against Defendant was granted.  Defendant was ordered to serve further responses to RPDs, set one, as to Nos. 2, 15, 37 and 43, within 20 days.  (Min. Order, May 5, 2023.)  Plaintiff filed notice of the ruling showing electronic service on Defendant on May 8, 2023.   

On May 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the May 5, 2023 order.  Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that Defendant failed to meet the requirements of CCP § 1008. Defendant did not file a reply.  

 

2. Motion for Reconsideration 

CCP § 1008(a) states:  

 

When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. 

 

CCP § 1008(a), thus, requires the Court to reconsider a prior ruling if it finds there are new or different facts, circumstances, or law than those before the Court at the time of the original ruling.  Once the Court determines the existence of new or different facts, circumstances, of law, it can either modify or affirm its prior decision.  (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 202.) 

 

The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it earlier.  (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 150.)  “[A] court acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon ‘new or different facts, circumstances, or law.’”  (Id.)  The burden under § 1008 “is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial.”  (New York Times Co. v. Sup.Ct. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.)   

 

Here, Defendant asserts that due to inadvertence, Defendant failed to attach in its opposition documents in support of its assertions at the time of the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPDs. In its opposition, Defendants argued that the Privileged and Confidential Warehouse Report requested by Plaintiff in his Motion to Compel was not responsive to the requests, and privileged because it was prepared solely in anticipation of litigation. The Court determined that Defendant did not submit any evidence in support of its assertion that the subject incident report was prepared in preparation for litigation. Defendant now produces a declaration describing the procedures and purpose of the subject incident report, which Defendant had failed to provide previously. Therefore, Defendant requests the Court reconsider and modify its May 5, 2023 order, and deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel further as to RPDs, set one, Nos. 2 and 15.  

 

Defendant’s only argument for reconsideration is its inadvertent omission of supporting documents. There is a strict requirement of diligence, so the moving party must present a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence or different facts earlier.  (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.)  A motion for reconsideration is properly denied where it is based on evidence that could have been presented in connection with the original motion.  (Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1460.) Accordingly, Defendant does not provide any new or different facts, circumstances, or law concerning the May 5, 2023 order granting Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to RPDs, set one.   

 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is denied.