Arizona Dream Act Coalition et al v. Brewer et al

Filing 125

ORDER denying 117 Motion for Reconsideration FURTHER ORDERED granting 118 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/6/13.(MAP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Arizona Dream Act Coalition; et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV12-02546 PHX DGC

Janice K. Brewer; et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

On May 16, 2013, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a

15

preliminary injunction. Doc. 114. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration.

16

Doc. 117. The Court will deny the motion.

17

Motions for reconsideration “are disfavored and will be granted only upon a

18

showing of manifest error or new facts or legal authority which could not have been

19

raised earlier with reasonable diligence.” In re Rosson, 545 F.3d 764, 769 (9th Cir. 2008)

20

(quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted); see also S.E.C. v. Kuipers, 399 Fed.

21

Appx. 167, 170 (9th Cir. 2010); LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Mere disagreement with an order is an

22

insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM

23

(ECV), 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008). Nor should a motion for

24

reconsideration be used to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. Id.; Nw. Acceptance

25

Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988).

26

Plaintiffs argue that the Court’s February 8, 2013, discovery order (Doc. 76)

27

barred Plaintiffs from relying on evidence relating to their fear of prosecution only if

28

Plaintiffs foreclosed Defendants from discovering how Plaintiffs drove and drive

1

(Doc. 117 at 12-15). Plaintiffs made the same argument in their reply brief in support of

2

their motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc. 97 at 36. The discovery order barred

3

Defendants from inquiring into how Plaintiffs were able to drive, obtain jobs, and engage

4

in similar activities without valid Arizona driver’s licenses.

5

protection – requested by Plaintiffs – the order precluded Plaintiffs from arguing that they

6

are irreparably harmed by being forced to engage in illegal activities or by fear of

7

prosecution for engaging in illegal activities. Doc. 76. The Court addressed these

8

matters in its ruling on the preliminary injunction request (Doc. 114 at 36 n. 11), and

9

Plaintiffs may not re-urge their interpretation of the discovery order in a motion for

10

reconsideration. See Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rogers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D.

11

581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“No motion for reconsideration shall repeat in any manner any

12

oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion.”).1

In exchange for this

13

The remainder of Plaintiffs’ arguments depend on the Court accepting Plaintiffs’

14

interpretation of the discovery order. Doc. 117 at 16-19. Plaintiffs argue that evidence of

15

individual Plaintiffs’ fear of prosecution for driving without a license is relevant and that

16

all relevant evidence must be considered unless an evidentiary rule or other source of law

17

supports the exclusion of that evidence. Doc. 117 at 16. As previously noted, the Court’s

18

discovery order precluded Plaintiffs from arguing that they are irreparably harmed by fear

19

of prosecution for driving without a valid driver’s license.2

20

Defendants inquired into how individual Plaintiffs were able to drive and thus “opened

Plaintiffs argue that

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

The Court notes its disagreement with Plaintiffs’ assertion that they never
prohibited Defendants from inquiring into how they obtained licenses or purported to be
able to drive. The Court’s order prohibited Defendants from inquiring into those
subjects, and Defendants did not assert in their briefing that Plaintiffs obtained false
licenses or drove without licenses. They merely asserted that Plaintiffs drove, something
that was expressly permitted by the Court’s order. Doc. 76.
2

For this reason, the Court will not consider the newly proffered evidence that
one individual Plaintiff has “been arrested for driving without a license.” Doc. 117 at 18.
Additionally, it is at least an overstatement to refer to a traffic stop and ticket as an
“arrest.” See Doc. 121.

28
-2-

1

the door” to Plaintiffs’ argument that they are irreparably harmed by fear of prosecution

2

for driving without a license. Doc. 117 at 17. This argument was also previously

3

asserted by Plaintiffs, rejected by the Court, and need not be reconsidered.

4

Plaintiffs’ motion fails to mention that the Court also declined to consider whether

5

they are irreparably harmed by fear of prosecution because the argument was made for

6

the first time in their reply brief. Doc. 114 at 37 n.12. Plaintiffs’ current motion does not

7

argue that this conclusion was error.

8

IT IS ORDERED:

9

1.

Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 117) is denied.

10

2.

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal (Doc. 118) is granted.

11

Dated this 6th day of June, 2013.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

cc: All counsel

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-