Jackson Family Farms, LLC v. Moore
- 3:24-cv-06763
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Jackson Family Farms v. Moore, the court denied Moore’s request to seek reconsideration of a discovery order.
Jerry Moore’s request was denied, leaving the September 16, 2025 discovery order in place. The order concerned Moore’s deposition and subpoenas served on Ian Donald and Tami Donald.
What happened
Jackson Family Farms, LLC asked the court to resolve discovery disputes involving Jerry Moore’s deposition and subpoenas served on two nonparties. The court’s earlier order required changes to Moore’s deposition notice and denied his request to quash the subpoenas.
Moore asked for permission to seek reconsideration, arguing that the earlier order overlooked or failed to address several arguments. The court found that he had not shown new facts, a change in law, a material difference from the earlier briefing, or a serious failure to consider relevant arguments.
The court denied Moore’s request for leave to file a reconsideration motion. The individual judge is not identified in the supplied opinion.
The detailed version
- Jackson Family Farms, LLC v. Moore · No. 3:24-cv-06763
- Sept. 17, 2025
Background
The court had been assigned all discovery matters in the case. Its September 16, 2025 order resolved disputes about Jackson Family Farms, LLC’s notice of Jerry Moore’s deposition and subpoenas for oral depositions and document production served on two nonparties, Ian Donald and Tami Donald.
In that earlier order, the court denied Moore’s request to quash his entire deposition notice. It found his argument about the timing of the notice procedurally defective and unpersuasive, and ordered that the notice be modified so the deposition would take place in Dallas, Texas, identified as Moore’s residence. The court also denied Moore’s request to quash the subpoenas served on the two nonparties because Moore had not shown that he had standing, meaning a sufficient legal interest, to challenge subpoenas issued to third parties.
Request for reconsideration
Moore sought leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the September 16 order. Under Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-9, a party must first obtain permission to file such a motion concerning an interlocutory order. The party must show a material difference in fact or law that was previously unknown despite reasonable diligence, new material facts or a change in law after the order, or a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented. The rule also bars simply rearguing matters already raised.
Moore argued that the September 16 order overlooked or failed to address five issues. The court determined that the issues had already been addressed, including Moore’s arguments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, arguments concerning confidential, financial, or business information, and arguments about the timing of the deposition notice and related discussions between the parties. The court concluded that Moore was repeating the same arguments in slightly different language.
Ruling
The court held that Moore had not shown new material facts or a change in law in the one day since the September 16 order. He also did not show a material difference in fact or law from the earlier briefing or a manifest failure to consider material facts or legal arguments. The court therefore denied Moore’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The order states that it resolves Docket 94.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.