Wagafe et al v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 458

ORDER granting Defendants' 454 Motion for Reconsideration and 455 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones.(MW)

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO RECONSIDER

v.
DONALD TRUMP, President of the United
States, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider (Dkt.
# 454) and Defendants’ corresponding motion to seal (Dkt. # 455).
As an initial matter, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to seal (Dkt. # 455),
finding good cause and finding compliance with the Local Rules.
Motions for reconsideration are “disfavored” and “ordinarily den[ied]” absent a
showing of “manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority
which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable
diligence.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). Defendants ask the Court to
reconsider its previous in camera review order. Dkt. # 454 at 4. Specifically, they ask
the Court “to reconsider portions of [its] order overruling certain redactions.” Id.

27
28

ORDER – 1

1

Because the Court already explained the history and scope of its in camera review, the

2

Court need not repeat that account here. Dkt. # 451.

3

During the Court’s in camera review, for some proposed redactions, “the Court

4

could not see the information under a redaction, or a portion of a redaction, and thus

5

made ‘no ruling on’ those redactions.” Dkt. # 454 at 2. Since then, however,

6

“Defendants [have] contacted Court staff and explained how the Court could access and

7

view” that information. Id. The Court finds that this new information constitutes “new

8

facts” under Local Rule 7(h)(1) and will indeed take this opportunity to reconsider.

9

In their motion, Defendants identify specific redactions—covering a specific page

10

range of a specific file—that the Court previously overruled. Dkt. # 454 at 3 (lines 12

11

through 14); cf. Dkt. # 451-1 at 5-6. Given the new information provided to the Court,

12

they ask the Court to reconsider and to “sustain all of Defendants’ redactions on these

13

pages.” Id. Upon reconsideration, for the reasons provided in Defendants’ motion, the

14

Court GRANTS Defendants’ request. The redactions identified above, previously

15

overruled, are no longer so. They are hereby SUSTAINED. In a manner consistent with

16

this order, Defendants shall apply the Court’s ruling to its larger document production.

17
18

For the reasons above, the Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. # 454) and
Defendants’ corresponding motion to seal (Dkt. # 455) are GRANTED.

19
20

DATED this 26th day of February, 2021.

A

21
22

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2