Isomedia LLC v. Spectrum Direct Inc et al

Filing 284

ORDER denying Defendants #280 #281 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge James L. Robart.(MD)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 v. SPECTRUM DIRECT, INC., et al., Defendants. Before the court is Defendants Green Bullion Financial Services, LLC and Direct ISOMEDIA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, CASE NO. C08-1733JLR ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

16 Wines, Inc.'s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 280) and Defendant Prosper, Inc.'s 17 motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 281). The court has reviewed the motions for 18 reconsideration. Pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 7(h)(1), motions for 19 reconsideration are disfavored, and will ordinarily be denied unless there is a showing of 20 (a) manifest error in the prior ruling, or (b) facts or legal authority which could not have 21 been brought to the attention of the court earlier, through reasonable diligence. Because 22
ORDER- 1

1 Defendants have not made either showing in their respective motions, the court DENIES 2 the motions for reconsideration (Dkt. # 280, 281). 3 In their motions, Defendants argue that the court erred in applying the summary

4 judgment standard, characterizing the court's oral ruling as not allowing them to satisfy 5 their initial burden on summary judgment by pointing out a lack of evidence to support 6 Plaintiffs' claims. The court recognizes that oral rulings run the risk of sacrificing some 7 of the clarity of written orders in favor of a more expeditious resolution of the issues. 8 Nevertheless, the court is not persuaded that reconsideration is appropriate here. 9 As the court explained in its oral ruling, a party without the ultimate burden of

10 persuasion at trial may meet its initial burden on summary judgment by showing that the 11 nonmoving party does not have sufficient evidence to carry its burden. Contrary to 12 Defendants' assertion, the court, in reviewing the motions for summary judgment, did not 13 require Defendants to negate an essential element of Plaintiffs' case, but rather permitted 14 Defendants to attempt to show that Plaintiffs did not have sufficient evidence to satisfy 15 essential elements of their claims. This does not mean, however, that a moving party 16 may simply identify a claim, assert that the nonmoving party has no evidence to support 17 the claim, and thereby automatically satisfy its initial burden on summary judgment; 18 rather, the summary judgment standard requires an actual showing that there is an 19 absence of evidence. The nature of the showing that is necessary will vary depending on 20 the factual and legal considerations at issue. To the extent a party attempts to meet this 21 showing either principally or entirely through argument, the party must still persuade the 22 court that it has shown an absence of evidence.
ORDER- 2

1

In this case, the court reviewed Defendants' arguments, as well as the pleadings,

2 the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and the evidence in the record where 3 appropriate, in determining whether summary judgment was warranted. The court will 4 not delve into a claim-by-claim analysis in this order. As a result of its review, however, 5 the court concluded that summary judgment was not appropriate as to all claims and 6 therefore granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motions for summary judgment. 7 Prosper, Inc. also submits additional evidence in support of its motion for

8 summary judgment. This evidence could have been submitted in connection with its 9 motion for summary judgment through reasonable diligence. This evidence is thus 10 insufficient to justify reconsideration. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
ORDER- 3

Dated this 8th day of September, 2010.

A____
JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge