Dalessio v. University of Washington

Filing 24

ORDER denying plaintiff's 22 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 7 JULIE DALESSIO, Plaintiff, 8 9 v. 10 THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, 11 Defendant. 12 ) ) CASE NO. C17-0642RSM ) ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ) ) ) ) 13 14 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. 15 #22. Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its prior ruling denying her motion to strike certain 16 portions of the Joint Status Report submitted by Defendant in this action. Id. Plaintiff argues 17 that this Court should have allowed her to present additional reasons why the material should 18 19 have been stricken, and that the reasons she did not sign the Joint Status Report were not 20 accurately represented to the Court. Id. 21 22 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h). “The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of 23 24 new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with 25 reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). In this case, the Court is not persuaded that it committed 26 manifest error in its ruling. Plaintiff appears to misconstrue the purpose of the Joint Status 27 Report. See Dkts. #22 and #23. While she disputes at length the reasons why she did not sign 28 the Joint Status Report that was filed by Defendant, and asks the Court to strike the Defendant’s ORDER PAGE - 1 1 purported explanation for her refusal to sign the Report, the primary purpose of the Joint Status 2 Report is to assist the Court in issuing an appropriate trial date and pre-trial deadlines. The 3 portions to which Plaintiff objected did not materially affect that decision. Dkt. #21. Moreover, 4 the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to strike because a Scheduling Order had already been issued, 5 and Plaintiff’s dispute did not affect any of the dates set in that Order. Id. 6 7 Plaintiff appears to believe that she will be prejudiced in some way if the Court allows 8 the Joint Status Report to stand as it is written. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s arguments 9 and exhibits, but has no further reason to utilize the Joint Status Report, and Plaintiff will have 10 opportunities to present the merits of her case as this litigation proceeds. The Court has no bias 11 against Plaintiff simply because of the way the Joint Status Report was filed in this motion. 12 13 However, no party should read this Order to imply that the Court has made any pre-judgment as 14 to the merits of this case, or as to how any future motion will be decided. 15 16 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #78) is DENIED. 17 18 DATED this 19 day of June 2017. 19 A 20 21 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER PAGE - 2

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?