Northwest Environmental Advocates v. U.S. Department of Commerce et al

Filing 119

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 113 Motion for Reconsideration signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

Download PDF
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 10 NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES, CASE NO. C16-1866-JCC ORDER Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, et al., 14 Defendants, 15 16 17 and THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, 18 Defendant-Intervenor. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 113). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein. The Court previously awarded Defendants partial summary judgment after finding that Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish standing on Claims #2 and #3. (Dkt. No. 112 at 7–8). Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of this decision, asserting the Court committed manifest error when it required Plaintiff to prove that it has standing. (Dkt. No. 113 at ORDER C16-1866-JCC PAGE - 1 1 3–5.) Plaintiff also asserts the Court committed manifest error when it applied a “reasonably 2 probable” rather than a “could protect” test in examining redressability in the context of 3 procedural injury. (Id. at 6–7.) Finally, Plaintiff moves for leave to conduct limited discovery on 4 this issue. (Id. at 5–6.) 5 Plaintiff first asserts that it was “manifest error to require [it] to establish standing to 6 defeat Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.” (Id. at 4); (see Dkt. No. 117 at 2–3) 7 (asserting that Plaintiff need not “prove” standing to defeat a motion for summary judgment). 8 The Court considered the parties’ arguments “in light of ‘the manner and degree of evidence 9 required at th[is] successive stage[] of the litigation.’” (Dkt. No. 112 at 3–4) (quoting Wash. 10 Envtl. Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2013)). “Plaintiffs, as the party asserting 11 federal court jurisdiction” had to put forth sufficient evidence to establish “a genuine issue of 12 material fact as to the standing elements.” Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 901 n.15 (9th Cir. 13 2013). This required sufficient evidence “that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the 14 nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Plaintiff failed to 15 do so. The only evidence Plaintiff put forward was Congressional intent regarding the purpose of 16 CZMA Section 306 and CWA Section 319 grants and unsupported predictions about what might 17 occur if Defendants were to withhold amounts from these grants. (See Dkt. No. 112 at 7–8.) This 18 is insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact. (Id.) 19 Plaintiff next asserts that it was manifest error to apply the “reasonably probable” test to 20 redressability. (Dkt. No. 113 at 6–7.) Even if this were true, “the redress[a]bility requirement is 21 not toothless in procedural injury cases . . . [p]rocedural rights can loosen . . . the redressability 22 prong, not eliminate it.” Friends of Santa Clara River v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 887 F.3d 23 906, 918 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Plaintiff put forth 24 insufficient evidence to demonstrate that withholding grant funds could protect its concrete 25 interests. 26 Finally, Plaintiff seeks leave to conduct limited discovery on this issue. (Dkt. No. 113 at ORDER C16-1866-JCC PAGE - 2 1 5–6.) The request is untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(2). Furthermore, it is not clear to the 2 Court what information Plaintiff could gather that would demonstrate that reducing grant funding 3 could reduce, rather than increase, Plaintiff’s injury. See Qualls By and Through Qualls v. Blue 4 Cross of Cal., Inc., 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994) (movant must “show how allowing 5 additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment.”). 6 7 8 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 113) is DENIED. DATED this 23rd day of August 2018. A 9 10 11 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER C16-1866-JCC PAGE - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?