Conklin v. University of Washington Medical Center et al

Filing 117

ORDER denying plaintiff's 116 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

JEREMY CONKLIN,

9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C18-0090RSL

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
MEDICINE, et al.,

13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration.”
Dkt. # 116. Plaintiff asserts that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the merits of
his claim under RCW 70.41.235 and the irreparable harm he will likely suffer if
injunctive relief is not granted.1 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this
district and will be granted only upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling”
or “new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s]
attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). Plaintiff has not met his

22
23
24
25
26

1

With regards to irreparable harm, plaintiff asserts that trial is not likely to occur in June 2019
as scheduled because discovery is stayed pending resolution of defendants’ motions to dismiss. Dkt.
# 116 at 2. The Court has not stayed discovery, however. A pending motion to dismiss does not
automatically give rise to a stay and, now that the parties have conducted their Rule 26(f) conference,
they may pursue discovery until February 3, 2019, as set forth in the case management order (Dkt.
# 98).

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

burden. The motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.

2
3
4
5

Dated this 13th day of July, 2018.

A

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

-2-