Notice Of Motion For Reconsideration
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Tuesday, July 07, 2026, Line 13. Defendant Paul Steiner's Motion For Reconsideration is DENIED.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a) permits reconsideration of a prior order when the moving party shows "new or different facts, circumstances, or law" and explains why the new or different facts, circumstances, or law were not presented earlier with reasonable diligence. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 208.) "The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown." (Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a).)
Defendant, an attorney, asks the court to reconsider its 5/26/2026 Order in order to strike its finding that he was "in breach of his ethical duties" because of his failure to timely produce all client materials to his former client pursuant to her 2/11/2026 request. The record on the motion that led to the 5/26/2026 Order made plain that Defendant had not produced all client materials and had not exercised diligence in identifying all client materials and their whereabouts in the four-and-a-half months between the request and the hearing.
Much of the information discussed in Defendant's reconsideration motion is information that existed and was available to Defendant long before 5/26/2026. It is, thus, not grounds for reconsideration. Defendant's "new' information does not support reconsideration; it, in fact, confirms the court's finding in the 5/26/2026 Order. Defendant has known since February 2026 that relevant client materials were on a deceased employee's laptop but took no material affirmative action to obtain the information until after the court issued its 5/26/2026 Order (and even then, Defendant missed the court's ordered production date of 5/302026). Defendant's efforts to "clarify" his counsel's testimony and argument from May 2026 are not grounds for reconsideration either.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ) |