Center for Biological Diversity et al v. Salazar et al

Filing 166

ORDER denying 164 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/27/2011.(NVO)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11

Center for Biological Diversity; Grand
Canyon Trust; Sierra Club; Kaibab Band of
Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian
Reservation; and the Havasupai Tribe,

12

No. CV-09-8207-PCT-DGC
ORDER

Plaintiffs,

13

vs.

14

Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior;
United States Bureau of Land Management;
Denison Arizona Strip, LLC; and Denison
Mines (USA) Corp.,

15
16

Defendants.

17
18
19

On May 27, 2011, the Court issued an order granting summary judgment in favor

20

of Defendants on claims one, two, three, and five of the third amended complaint.

21

Doc. 163.

22

consideration, and BLM was given until June 24, 2011 to revise its decision to apply a

23

categorical exclusion to the free use permit. Id. at 26. BLM has submitted its revised

24

decision. Doc. 165. A briefing schedule is in place for the parties to address the merits

25

of claim four in light of the revised decision and any remedies the Court should impose if

26

it grants summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. Id. at 27.

27
28

With respect to claim four, the case was remanded to BLM for further

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment order.

1

Doc. 164. The motion will be denied because Plaintiffs have not met the high standard to

2

obtain reconsideration.

3

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

4

circumstances. Such a motion is denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing

5

of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention

6

earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d

7

934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for

8

reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 1776502,

9

at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008).

10

Plaintiffs seek reconsideration with respect to two issues. First, Plaintiffs assert

11

that they should be permitted to conduct discovery and file a brief on the remedy for

12

claim four before a final summary judgment ruling. Id. at 2-4. Plaintiffs note that

13

discovery related to a possible remedy in this case has been deferred until after liability

14

issues were resolved (Doc. 101), but that decision was made before Plaintiffs asserted

15

claim four in the third amended complaint (Doc. 126). Plaintiffs do not describe the

16

discovery they wish to conduct concerning claim four, nor do they explain why further

17

briefing is necessary regarding the remand issue. The motion for reconsideration will be

18

denied in this respect.

19

Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the scope of review on remand based on

20

purported inconsistencies between the Court’s factual and legal findings. Doc. 164

21

at 4-5.

22

“to exclude review of the Arizona 1 mine.” Id. at 5. No such limitation has been

23

imposed.

24

Defendants’ favor on claims one through three, no new plan of operations need be

25

approved for Arizona 1 and the 1988 EA need not be supplemented. Doc. 163 at 24 n.7.

26

The Court made clear that “BLM must, . . . in a format consistent with a categorical

27

exclusion, explain its finding of no significant cumulative impact.” Id. This requirement

According to Plaintiffs, the Court limited BLM’s consideration on remand

The Court merely noted that, given the grant of summary judgment in

28
-2-

1

does not exclude consideration of Arizona 1.

2

IT IS ORDERED:

3

1.

Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 164) is denied.

4

2.

The post-remand briefing schedule set forth in the summary judgment order

5

(Doc. 163 at 27) remains in effect: By July 22, 2011, the parties shall file simultaneous

6

memoranda, not to exceed 10 pages in length, addressing their respective positions on

7

(a) the merits of claim four in light of the revised decision, and (b) any remedies the

8

Court should impose if it grants summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on claim four.

9

The parties shall file simultaneous responses, not to exceed 5 pages, by July 29, 2011.

10

Dated this 27th day of June, 2011.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-