Garcia et al v. Stemilt Ag Services LLC

Filing 198

ORDER DENYING 173 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION filed by Jonathan Gomez Rivera, Gilberto Gomez Garcia. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (MRJ, Case Administrator)

Case 2:20-cv-00254-SMJ

ECF No. 198

1

Sep 17, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

5
6
7

GILBERTO GOMEZ GARCIA, as an
individual and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons,
JONATHAN GOMEZ RIVERA, as an
individual and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons,

10
11

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

No. 2:20-cv-00254-SMJ
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiffs,

8
9

PageID.5568 Page 1 of 2

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

2

4

filed 09/17/21

v.
STEMILT AG SERVICES LLC,
Defendant.

12
13
14

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Rule 54(b) Motion for Reconsideration of
Court Order ECF No. 87, ECF No. 173. The Court denies the motion.

15

Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the

16

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc.

17

v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “A district court may

18

properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented with newly discovered

19

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

20

(3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION – 1

Case 2:20-cv-00254-SMJ

ECF No. 198

filed 09/17/21

PageID.5569 Page 2 of 2

1

Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263).

2

Courts generally disfavor motions for reconsideration, and they may not be used to

3

present new arguments or evidence that could have been raised earlier. Fuller v.

4

M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir.1991).

5
6
7

The Court cannot determine that it has committed clear error or that its initial
decision was manifestly unjust. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Rule 54(b) Motion for Reconsideration of Court Order ECF

8

No. 87, ECF No. 173, is DENIED.

9

A.

However, the Court AMENDS the Order at Page 11, Line 11–

10

13 to read “And there is no public right to access unfiled

11

discovery. See Bond v. Ulteras, 585 F.3d 1061 (7th Cir. 2009).”

12

B.

The Court notes that nothing in the Court’s Order, ECF No. 87,

13

prevents Plaintiffs from requesting initial ex parte or in camera

14

review of any request under the Order, as appropriate.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and
provide copies to all counsel.
DATED this 17th day of September 2021.

18
19
20

_________________________
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION – 2