OVRAHIM, NARMELIN vs UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

The Court finds that the majority of Plaintiffs' arguments improperly seek to re-litigate issues previously raised and considered in connection with Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to revisit prior arguments or to correct perceived judicial error. Instead, the court may grant reconsideration only if presented with " 'new or different facts, circumstances, or law.' (Crotty v. Trader (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 765, 770-771.) A motion for reconsideration, which requires the moving party to offer new or different facts, circumstances, or law that could not, with reasonable diligence, have been previously discovered, will be denied absent a strong showing of diligence.?(Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007), 150 Cal.App.4th 183). A party seeking reconsideration must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time. ?(Dickson v. Mann (2024) 103 Cal. App. 5th 935, review denied (Oct. 23, 2024). The Court is confident that Plaintiff's Counsel is no doubt aware of these statements of the law and therefore does not appreciate Plaintiff's Counsel's contribution to judicial inefficiency by rehashing arguments already made in opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in this motion. The court therefore declines to revisit in this motion any claims of judicial error and or misinterpretation or misapplication of the law. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the deposition testimony of Ms. Ygbuhay or Mr. Wenko constitutes "new or different facts" within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure §1008. The substance of such testimony is cumulative of evidence already before the Court regarding the RMCC database and Defendant's consideration of safety measures. Nor have Plaintiffs shown reasonable diligence in obtaining or presenting such evidence earlier. Plaintiffs' arguments regarding alleged discovery misconduct and evidentiary authentication similarly fail to satisfy the requirements of §1008, and do not warrant reconsideration. However, the Court finds that Defendant's amended responses to Requests for Admission concerning the timing of fencing installation--indicating that such fencing was installed between August and November 2018--constitute a new fact not previously before the Court in verified form. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that this information was not available to them at the time of the summary judgment proceedings. A verified admission of a fact is not equivalent to circumstantial evidence that may support a conclusion as to the existence of said fact. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2033.410). Plaintiffs were therefore not in possession of said fact when Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment MSJ was heard. (Film Packages, Inc. v. Brandywine Film Productions, Ltd. (1987), 193 Cal.App.3d 824) Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED solely as to this newly presented fact. The Court will reconsider its prior ruling only to the limited extent necessary to evaluate the impact of this fact. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. Because the Court grants reconsideration solely as to Defendant's amended response to Requests for Admission regarding the timing of fencing installation, and its impact, if any, on any applicable duties of Defendant. The Court will conduct further proceedings limited to the impact of that fact on the prior summary judgment ruling.