Fuller v. Hafoka
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:19-cv-00886
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Fuller v. Hafoka, Judge Thorson denied Fuller’s request to reconsider an earlier denial of discovery because he showed no compelling circumstances.
Fontell Demann Fuller’s request was denied. The opinion does not describe any direct change affecting Stanley Hafoka or the other defendants.
What happened
In Fuller v. Hafoka, Fontell Demann Fuller asked the court to reconsider its earlier order denying his request for discovery. The court applied a local rule requiring compelling circumstances, such as a serious legal or factual mistake or newly discovered evidence, before allowing reconsideration.
The court found that Fuller’s submission raised no new matter and only sought to revisit issues already considered. It therefore concluded that he had not shown the required compelling circumstances.
Judge Becky R. Thorson denied Fuller’s letter request to file a motion for reconsideration.
The detailed version
- Fuller v. Hafoka · No. 0:19-cv-00886
- Patrick Schiltz
- Sept. 1, 2020
Background
On August 27, 2020, Fontell Demann Fuller filed a letter asking the court to reconsider its August 13, 2020 order denying his motion for discovery. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain what discovery Fuller sought.
Legal standard
Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j), the court will permit a motion to reconsider only when the requesting party shows compelling circumstances. The opinion identifies examples including a manifest error of law or fact or newly discovered evidence. A reconsideration request cannot be used simply to reargue the original motion.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that Fuller’s submission did not raise any matter that was not, or could not have been, addressed in his earlier briefing and argument. Instead, the court found that he was attempting to relitigate issues it had already considered. The court therefore determined that Fuller had not demonstrated compelling circumstances.
Disposition
The court denied Fuller’s letter request, docketed as Document No. 101, for permission to file a motion to reconsider the denial of discovery.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.