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)
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?