Evanston Insurance Company v. Workland & Witherspoon, PLLC et al

Filing 51

ORDER Denying 47 Evanston's Motion to Alter or Amend the Court's Order. Signed by Chief Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (CV, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

EVANSTON INSURANCE
COMPANY,

NO: 2:14-CV-193-RMP

8
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
12

v.

ORDER DENYING EVANSTON’S
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
THE COURT’S ORDER

WORKLAND & WITHERSPOON,
PLLC, a limited liability company; and
ERIC SACHTJEN, an individual,
Defendants.

13
14

BEFORE THE COURT is Evanston’s Motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

15

59(e), to Alter or Amend the Court’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for

16

Summary Judgment for Declaratory Judgment and Granting Defendants’ Motion to

17

Strike Statement of Facts, ECF No. 47. The Court has reviewed the motion, all

18

relevant filings, and is fully informed.

19

Evanston moves the Court to reconsider its order striking several of its

20

exhibits and denying its motion for summary judgment. Reconsideration pursuant

ORDER DENYING EVANSTON’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE
COURT’S ORDER ~ 1

1

to Rule 59(e) “is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

2

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

3

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” See

4

Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

5

Cir. 1993). Evanston argues that the Court committed clear error in its ruling.

6

Evanston focuses on the Court’s refusal to consider Evanston’s authenticated

7

exhibits that were filed subsequent to Defendants’ responsive briefs to the motion

8

for summary judgment and the filing of Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s

9

exhibits. Evanston appears to rely on Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) for the proposition that

10

a court must allow a party to remedy its prior failure “to properly support an

11

assertion of fact.” However, the operative word in Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) is “may”:

12

“the court may” give an opportunity. In this case, the Court exercised its discretion

13

to not allow Evanston to remedy its failure to submit proper support for its motion

14

for summary judgment.

15

Evanston also challenges the Court’s ruling regarding the inadmissibility of

16

certain exhibits as hearsay. Nothing presented in Evanston’s memoranda in

17

support of their motion to alter or amend is persuasive that the Court committed

18

any error in that ruling. Therefore, the Court concludes that it did not commit clear

19

error, and there is no other basis on which to grant the motion. Evanston’s Motion

20

to Alter or Amend is denied.

ORDER DENYING EVANSTON’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE
COURT’S ORDER ~ 2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Evanston’s Motion to Alter

2

or Amend the Court’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

3

for Declaratory Judgment and Granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike Statement of

4

Facts, ECF No. 47, is DENIED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this

5

Order and provide copies to counsel

6

DATED this 26th day of June 2015.

7
8
9

s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
Chief United States District Court Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DENYING EVANSTON’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE
COURT’S ORDER ~ 3