In the civil arena, "the party seeking reconsideration must provide not only new evidence but also a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time. In short, the moving party's burden is the same as that of a party seeking new trial on the ground of 'newly discovered evidence, material for the party making the application, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial.'" (Blue Mountain Development Co. v. Carville (1982), 132 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1013. Accord, Mink v. Superior Court (1992), 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342.)

This is based on Code of Civil Procedure 1008. However, according to People v. Castello (1998), 65 Cal.App.4th 1242, Code of Civ. Pro. 1008, which governs motions for reconsideration in the civil arena, does not apply to criminal cases. Criminal courts, however, look to Code Civ. Pro. 1008 for guidance. (See, e.g., In re Kowalski (1971), 21 Cal.App.3d 67, 70.) In rejecting the application of Code Civ.Pro. 1008 to criminal cases, the Castello court emphasized that a criminal court has the inherent power to reconsider its own rulings. The court noted that, at most, "section 1008 requires courts to exercise due consideration before modifying, amending or revoking prior orders. (Castello, supra, at 1250.) Thanks to Jason Cox.