Bright Harvest Sweet Potato Company, Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Company, L.P.

Filing 196

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Memorandum Decision and Order (Dkt. 192 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
BRIGHT HARVEST SWEET POTATO
COMPANY, INC., an Oregon
corporation,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00296-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
H. J. HEINZ COMPANY, L.P., a
Pennsylvania limited partnership,
Defendant.

The Court has before it Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Memorandum
Decision and Order (Dkt. 192). A motion to reconsider an interlocutory ruling requires an
analysis of two important principles: (1) Error must be corrected; and (2) Judicial
efficiency demands forward progress. The former principle has led courts to hold that a
denial of a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment may be reconsidered at any time
before final judgment. Preaseau v. Prudential Insurance Co., 591 F.2d 74, 79-80 (9th
Cir. 1979). While even an interlocutory decision becomes the “law of the case,” it is not
necessarily carved in stone. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded that the “law of
the case” doctrine “merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen
what has been decided, not a limit to their power.” Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436,
444 (1912). “The only sensible thing for a trial court to do is to set itself right as soon as

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

possible when convinced that the law of the case is erroneous. There is no need to await
reversal.” In re Airport Car Rental Antitrust Litigation, 521 F.Supp. 568, 572 (N.D.Cal.
1981)(Schwartzer, J.).
The need to be right, however, must co-exist with the need for forward progress. A
court’s opinions “are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and
reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure.” Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc.,
123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D.Ill.1988).
Reconsideration of a court’s prior ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) is appropriate “if (1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
(2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly
unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” S.E.C. v. Platforms
Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). If the
motion to reconsider does not fall within one of these three categories, it must be denied.
Because most motions for reconsideration are nothing more than a request that the
Court change its mind, it is this Court’s practice to review such motions as soon as
possible, and if that is the case, the Court tries to issue a quick decision so as not to
burden the parties with extensive briefing. That is the case here. Defendant’s motion has
not met its burden of proving any one of the three requirements for reconsideration.
Essentially, Defendants ask the Court to re-think its position on the law and facts in this
case. The Court understands that Defendant’s position is different from the Court’s, but
that is not justification for the Court to reconsider its decision. The Court issued its

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

opinion based upon the Court’s understanding of the law and facts in this case, and the
Court will not change that position now. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration will
be denied.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Memorandum Decision and Order
(Dkt. 192) is DENIED.

DATED: September 25, 2015

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3