PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S ORDERDENYING MOTION TO STRIKE FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728targeting plaintiff for harassment, retaliation and humiliation over the course of the next six years. In2005, defendants’ conduct finally caused plaintiff to suffer clinical depression. When plaintiff beganreduced work schedule sick leave in 2006 to treat his depression, defendants responded by demoting himand retaliating against him further, effectively ending plaintiff’s pathology career.
On January 6, 2007, plaintiff filed his complaint (Doc. 1). Plaintiff subsequently filed twosupplemental complaints on April 24 (Doc. 24) and June 13, 2007 (Doc. 30), respectively. Defendantsfiled their answer on April 30, 2007 (Doc. 25), and their answer to the second supplemental complainton June 21, 2007 (Doc. 31, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1).In their answer, Defendants asserted the fifth affirmative defense as follows:Defendants allege that, during Plaintiff’s employment at Kern Medical Center, Plaintiff was arrogant, disagreeable, uncooperative, intimidating, overbearing, self-righteous andunfriendly and that Plaintiff’s behavior contributed to and was the direct and proximatecause of any stresses, disabilities or injuries that Plaintiff believes he sustained.The parties met and conferred extensively regarding the FAD starting on May 11, 2007. On July11, 2007, Plaintiff filed the motion to strike the FAD (Doc. 32). Magistrate Judge Theresa A. Goldnerheard oral arguments on August 13, 2007.On October 23, 2007, the Court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion to strike (Doc. 64, atrue and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2). The Court found that the FAD was “legallysufficient and that an order striking the defense is not warranted at this time”. See
at p. 7:2-3. TheCourt also found that the FAD “does not reflect cruelly on plaintiff’s character, does not use repulsivelanguage, and is not sufficiently derogatory or degrading to constitute a scandalous matter within themeaning of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”. See
at pp. 7:24 – 8:1.
AUTHORITY FOR MOTION
A District Court judge may reconsider pre-trial matters where it has been shown that themagistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule72-303. A motion to reconsider is appropriate if the court committed clear error or the initial decisionwas manifestly unjust.
School District No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.
, 5 F.3d 1255, 1263(9th Cir. 1993).
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 68 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 3 of 42