Dalessio v. University of Washington

Filing 24

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

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