![sample motion for reconsideration pennsylvania sample motion for reconsideration pennsylvania](https://brdwlaw.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/MOTIONS-FOR-SUMMARY-JUDGMENT-AND-JUDGMENT-ON-THE-PLEADINGS-768x384.jpg)
![sample motion for reconsideration pennsylvania sample motion for reconsideration pennsylvania](https://newyorkpcg.org/pcgny/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Guide-to-Petition-for-Change-in-First-Name.png)
Indeed, on June 16, 1998, over two weeks after the staff had forwarded its recommendation, the Assistant Attorney General met with counsel for the Federation and for two individuals, whom the staff had recommended be named as defendants. The Antitrust Division staff's recommendation to file suit was but a preliminary step toward the decision ultimately made by the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division to file this case-a decision that is committed by law solely to the Assistant Attorney General's discretion. Rather, in elaborating on the rapid pace of the CID investigation, the brief there states accurately that "y June 1, 1998, the Division staff recommended that suit be filed." (3) (D.I. That citation contains no such admission. at 6, citing footnote 12 of the Government's opposition brief (D.I. With regard to the first point, the Court was under a mistaken impression when it concluded that the "more telling" ground for determining that the Government was manipulating the discovery rules was "the Government's admission that the decision to initiate this litigation occurred on June 1, 1998." Id. But the facts are that (1) the decision to bring this action was not made not in June, but in August, 1998 and (2) the only two CID depositions the Government took during the period from June through August, 1998, were taken on June 9, after being postponed from April, for the convenience of defendant's counsel and the deponents. If such a belief were accurate, it would constitute a finding of highly inappropriate conduct by the Antitrust Division.
![sample motion for reconsideration pennsylvania sample motion for reconsideration pennsylvania](https://reischlawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Filing-A-Motion-For-Reconsideration-After-A-Criminal-Conviction.jpg)
Thus, the Court believed that the Government initiated significant CID discovery after it had decided to file this case to avoid reasonable discovery orders and limitations by the Court. The Court therefore finds that the Protective Order the Movants seek is appropriate under these circumstances.ĭ.I. The Court cannot condone such manipulation of the discovery rules, especially when the burden of the Government's tactics would fall on nonparties. The Court agrees with the Movants that this delay in bringing suit suggests that "the Government was simply using the CID process to obtain as much unfettered discovery as possible before it ultimately brought an action in which it would be subject to reasonable discovery orders and limitations of this Court." (D.I. The Government, however, did not actually file its complaint until August 12, 1998.
![sample motion for reconsideration pennsylvania sample motion for reconsideration pennsylvania](https://data.templateroller.com/pdf_docs_html/2023/20239/2023916/form-3dc41-motion-for-reconsideration-or-new-trial-declaration-notice-of-motion-certificate-of-service-hawaii.png)
In support of this view, the Court opined: Even more telling is the Government's admission that the decision to initiate this litigation occurred on June 1, 1998. The reason that the Court gave for this drastic ruling (2) was its belief that "allowing the Government to proceed with another round of depositions would essentially be Court authorization for the Government to manipulate the discovery rules." (D.I. Investigation that Preceded the Filing of this Case Warrant ReconsiderationĪlthough this Court acknowledged that pre-complaint, investigative depositions taken pursuant to civil investigative demands ("CIDs") "do not automatically replace pretrial depositions," (1) the Court nonetheless quashed the 23 pretrial depositions. Key Facts Regarding the Timing and Scope of CID Discovery During the.1999) (under Local Rule 7.1.5, court may grant reargument "where the court has made an error not of reasoning, but of apprehension"). 201 at 6) and (2) "the Government still has ample opportunity to conduct further discovery." Id. Reargument is appropriate to address facts that contradict the Court's conclusions that (1) "allowing the Government to proceed with another round of depositions would essentially be Court authorization for the Government to manipulate the discovery rules," (D.I. 198, 199) quashing 23 depositions noticed by the United States in this case. 201) filed on November 7, 2000, explaining the Court's prior entry of protective orders (D.I. Those motions are the subject of this Court's Memorandum Opinion (D.I. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.5 and to Your Honor's instruction at the February 16, 1999, scheduling conference, the United States respectfully submits this letter, in lieu of a formal motion, requesting reargument (and reconsideration by the Court) of the motions filed by defendant Federation of Physicians and Dentists (D.I. Federation of Physicians and Dentists, 98-CV-475 For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.
#SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PENNSYLVANIA PDF#
To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF.