(N.D.Cal.1991). The Commonwealth also now relies on a letter Morrill received from J. Bryan Riley, the director of Massachusetts HalfWay Houses, Inc., which specifies November 20, 1983 as the last day of Davis’ probation. See Resp’t Mem., Ex. J. That letter is dated January 27, 1984, and was therefore available to the Commonwealth when it filed its original motion to dismiss on April 6, 1984. The Commonwealth offers no explanation as to why it did not present the letter to Judge Skinner or why this Court should entertain the letter on its motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, this Court need not reconsider Judge Skinner’s ruling, notwithstanding the addition of the letter to the Commonwealth’s presentation. See Waltman v. International Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473-74 (5th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, this Court rejects the
holding that an argument was barred where the movant could have but did not raise its argument before the district court ruled in the original motion holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a rule 56f motion for a continuance where the movant had ample time in which to pursue the discovery that it now claims is essential holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion for reconsideration that relied on materials available to the movant at the time of the original motion and where movant did not give any explanation as to why she did not rely on those materials in the first instance holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice