Stevens v. Brigham Young University - Idaho et al

Filing 269

MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 263 ) 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)

Case 4:16-cv-00530-BLW Document 269 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

LORI STEVENS,

Case No. 4:16-cv-00530-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY IDAHO, dba BYU-Idaho,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. 263). Plaintiff
seeks to have the Court reconsider its decision denying Plaintiff’s motion to
disqualify the law firm Kirton McConkie from representing defendant, Brigham
Young University – Idaho (BYU-I). For the reasons discussed below, the Court
denies the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Motions for reconsideration are requests for an “extraordinary remedy, to be
used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”
Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). The high bar that movants
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Case 4:16-cv-00530-BLW Document 269 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 4

must overcome to prevail on a motion for reconsideration reflects the courts’
“concerns for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial efficiency.”
Costello v. United States Gov't, 765 F. Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991). As a
result, the moving party must demonstrate that reconsideration is warranted based
on one of four limited grounds: (1) to correct manifest errors of law or fact; (2) to
consider newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) to prevent
manifest injustice; or (4) to consider an intervening change in the law. See Turner
v. Burlington North. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003).
A motion for reconsideration is not intended to provide litigants with a
“second bite at the apple.” Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001).
Thus, the “motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the
first time [that] could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation,” Kona
Enterprises, Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000), nor is it an
opportunity to reargue the moving parties’ positions, see Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d
1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding no abuse of discretion where the district court
denied a motion to reconsider the judgment based on the same arguments made in
the original motion).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Case 4:16-cv-00530-BLW Document 269 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 4

ANALYSIS1
Plaintiff argues that the Court should reconsider its decision denying her
request to disqualify the law firm Kirton McConkie from representing BYU-I
because the Court committed clear error in deciding that the term “affected client”
in Rule 1.7(b)(4) of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct does not include
Plaintiff.
In denying the motion to disqualify, the Court thoroughly considered the
arguments raised by the parties in support of their respective positions, including
Plaintiff’s argument that her consent was required under Rule 1.7. After
considering the parties’ arguments, and analyzing the issue, the Court determined
that Plaintiff’s permission was not required under Rule 1.7. The Court exercised its
discretion in denying the motion to disqualify and imposed conditions, precautions,
and safeguards to protect the privileged information in the possession of Kirton
McConkie.
Plaintiff’s counsel disagrees with the Court’s determination that her
permission is not required under Rule 1.7. In support, she makes the same

1

Because the background of this case has been fully set forth in the Court’s previous
Memorandum Decision and Order, entered April 23, 2021 (Dkt. 262), the Court will not repeat
that background here but will instead turn directly to the merits of the pending motion.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Case 4:16-cv-00530-BLW Document 269 Filed 07/19/21 Page 4 of 4

arguments she made previously in support of her motion to disqualify, as well as
additional arguments she could and should have made previously. Her arguments
do not raise newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, nor do they raise
an intervening change in the law, convince the Court that it clearly erred, or
demonstrate that the Court’s decision results in manifest injustice. Accordingly,
Plaintiff has not met her burden of demonstrating that reconsideration is warranted.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 263) is
DENIED.

DATED: July 19, 2021
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4