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)

Download PDF
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-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?