Young et al v. Regence BlueShield et al

Filing 110

ORDER denying 109 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(MD)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This matter comes before the Court on defendant's motion for reconsideration of the Court's August 6, 2009 order permitting plaintiff to file a reply in support of its motion for reconsideration. On June 18, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's previous order dismissing their claims. After receiving the motion for reconsideration, the Court issued an order permitting defendant to file a response to the motion, which they did. The order explained that no further briefing on the issue would be accepted. Plaintiff then filed a motion to file a reply. Defendant did not respond to that motion, the Court granted it, and defendant now seeks to have the order vacated and the motion to file a reply denied. Defendant contends that it did not believe it could file a response to the motion to file a reply because the Court's prior order precluded further briefing on the first motion
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE KIMBERLY YOUNG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. REGENCE BLUESHIELD, et al., Defendants. Case No. C07-2008RSL ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

for reconsideration. That order, however, did not preclude defendant from filing a response to the subsequently-filed motion. Moreover, the motion to file a reply was not filed as a motion for reconsideration, to which no response is generally permitted. Rather, it was filed as a motion for relief from a limit imposed by court order and noted for a later date, which gave defendant the opportunity to respond. Regardless, the Court did not grant plaintiff's motion solely based on defendant's failure to reply. The motion was also granted on its merits. Accordingly, the motion to for reconsideration (Dkt. #109) is DENIED.

DATED this 10th day of August, 2009.

A Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2