Ma v. San Francisco Estuary Institute

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SHUFEN MA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY
INSTITUTE,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-05060-JCS
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF SANCTIONS
AWARD
Re: Dkt. No. 124
Plaintiff brings a motion asking the Court to reconsider its order awarding $2,400 in
sanctions based on discovery misconduct. Dkt. no. 124 (“Motion”). Once judgment has been
entered, reconsideration may be sought by filing a motion under either Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)
(motion for relief from judgment). See Hinton v. Pac. Enter., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993).
“Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the
rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th
Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court
(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision
was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No.
1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for
reconsideration does not give parties a “second bite at the apple.” See id.
“Similarly, Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a
showing of exceptional circumstances.” HM Elecs., Inc. v. R.F. Techs., Inc., No. 12-CV-2884
BAS (JLB), 2015 WL 11234136, at *1–2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2015) (citing Engleson v. Burlington
Case 3:23-cv-05060-JCS Document 135 Filed 06/05/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Ben Sager Chem. Int'l v. E. Targosz & Co.,
560 F.2d 805, 809 (7th Cir. 1977)). Rule 60(b) permits the court to grant reconsideration based on:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by
due diligence could not have been discovered before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse
party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason
justifying relief. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). “That last prong is ‘used sparingly as an
equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary
circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous
judgment.’” Id. (quoting Delay v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2007)).
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion and supporting declaration and concludes that
she has not established that reconsideration of its sanctions order is warranted under the standards
set forth above. As stated in the Court’s order awarding sanctions, Plaintiff violated the protective
order in the case more than once and had been admonished by the Court concerning her failure to
follow the Court’s standing order, the Civil Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See dkt. no. 122 at 7-8. Furthermore, nothing in Plaintiff’s Motion or supporting declaration
changes the Court’s conclusion that the violation of the protective order that resulted in the
Court’s award of sanctions was “flagrant and deliberate.” Id. at 8. Nor has Plaintiff pointed to
any evidence that leads the Court to believe that the amount the Court awarded, which is less than
Defendants originally requested, is not the amount that was reasonably incurred by Defendants as
a result of Plaintiff’s misconduct. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 5, 2026
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-05060-JCS Document 135 Filed 06/05/26 Page 2 of 2