Bai v. Reubart ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 XIAOYE BAI, Case No.: 2:19-cv-00739-GMN-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. 10 REUBART, et al., [Docket No. 63] 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the orders denying his 13 request for appointment of counsel. Docket No. 63.1 Defendants filed a response in opposition. 14 Docket No. 65. Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket No. 66. The motion is properly resolved without a 15 hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons stated below, the motion is hereby DENIED. 16 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. Local Rule 59-1(b); see also Koninklijke 17 Philips Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 245 F.R.D. 470, 472 (D. Nev. 2007) (“Reconsideration is 18 an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly” (citation and internal quotations omitted)). The 19 Local Rules provide the applicable standards in addressing whether the Court should reconsider 20 an interlocutory order, indicating that reconsideration may be appropriate if (1) there is newly 21 discovered evidence that was not available when the original motion or response was filed, (2) the 22 Court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an 23 intervening change in controlling law. Local Rule 59-1(a). 24 1 Plaintiff’s requests for appointment of counsel in this case have been denied three times. 25 Docket Nos. 64 (denying objection to denial of motion for reconsideration), 45 (denying motion for reconsideration), 26 (denying motion for appointment of counsel). Hence, the Court construes 26 the instant motion as an additional motion for reconsideration. The Court does note, however, that the instant motion is slightly more nuanced in that it seeks appointment of counsel solely to assist 27 in discovery. Even were this request to be resolved as a stand-alone motion rather than a motion for reconsideration, the Court is nonetheless unpersuaded that appointment of counsel is 28 appropriate based on the reasons articulated herein. 1 In this case, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is premised on his assertion that new 2|| circumstances justify relief. In particular, Plaintiff points to the fact that defense counsel has 3]) objected to certain discovery requests that Plaintiff propounded as grounds for appointment of 4 counsel. See Docket No. 63 at 3; see also id. at 8 (letter from defense counsel refusing to provide 5|| discovery responses).” The Court is unpersuaded. As the Court has already explained, Plaintiff 6] must establish exceptional circumstances for the relief requested. Docket No. 26 at 1 (citing 7|| Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009)). While Plaintiff has a fair likelihood of 8|| succeeding on his claims, he has not shown that the complexities of the case prevent him from fairly articulating those claims. See id. at 2. The fact that defense counsel has objected to discovery 10|| requests and that Plaintiff is frustrated by the discovery process does not change this outcome. Cf. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (the need for a pro se litigant to 12|| conduct discovery does not create exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel). As such, grounds do not exist to reconsider the previous denials of Plaintiff's request for 14|| appointment of counsel. 15 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Given that this is Plaintiff's fourth request for appointment of counsel, the Court again instructs that it is time for 17|| him to move past this issue and to “proceed with prosecuting his case without an attorney based 18] on the rulings that have already been made.” Docket No. 62 at 2. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: May 25, 2021 21 ZENS Ze 22 United Slate MY adistrate Judge 23 . 24 25 > The Court will not delve into the substance of the specific discovery objections because that dispute is not squarely presented. The Court notes, however, that perfection is not required in 26] a pro se inmate’s discovery requests for a meaningful response to be provided by defense counsel. See, e.g., Jones v. Zimmer, 2014 WL 6772916, at *7 (D. Nev. Dec. 2, 2014) (citing Manley v. 27|| Zimmer, 2014 WL 1576857, at *12 (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 2014)). The Court trusts Plaintiff and defense counsel can work together in cooperation so that Plaintiff obtains meaningful discovery. Cf. Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015).