Satter v. State of Washington Department of Ecology et al

Filing 100

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle DENYING 81 Motion for Reconsideration; and DENYING 84 Motion for Reconsideration.(TG)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER ­ 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA STELLA SATTER, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, et al., Defendants. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Stella Satter's ("Satter") motions for reconsideration (Dkts. 81 & 84) of the Court's order granting Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of prior restraint (Dkt. 59) and the Court's order granting Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment regarding constructive discharge claim (Dkt. 79). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motions and the remainder of the file and hereby denies Satter's motions for the reasons stated herein. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY For a more complete procedural history and factual background see the Court's order on Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of prior restraint (Dkt. 59) and the Court's order on Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment regarding constructive discharge claim (Dkt. 79). On June 8, 2010, the Court granted Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of prior restraint. Dkt. 59. CASE NO. C09-5645BHS ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On June 22, 2010, Satter filed a motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 62) and on June 30, 2010, the Court denied the motion (Dkt. 66). On August 10, 2010, the Court granted Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment regarding constructive discharge claim. Dkt. 79. On August 24, 2010, Satter filed the instant motions for reconsideration of the Court's orders on Defendants' motions for partial summary judgment. Dkts. 81 & 84. On August 25, 2010, the Court ordered Defendants to file a response to the motions. Dkt. 86. On September 16, 2010, Defendants filed their response. Dkt. 87. The Court granted Satter's request to file a late reply to Defendants' response (Dkt. 98) and on October 21, 2010, Satter filed her reply (Dkt. 99). II. DISCUSSION Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h), which provides as follows: Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of 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 its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). When Satter filed her motions for reconsideration, the Court, considering the timing of the discovery of the document she refers to as the "Suggestions Memo" and what impact the document might have on the Court's previous orders on summary judgment, ordered Defendants to file a response to the motions. However, having considered Defendants' response to the motions, Satter's reply, and the Suggestions Memo itself, the Court concludes that although the Suggestions Memo contains some new facts, the facts are neither relevant nor material to the Court's decisions on the motions for summary judgment. Satter's main argument in seeking reconsideration of the Court's order on her constructive discharge claim is that the Suggestions Memo contains instructions from Joy St. Germain, Director of Employee Services, to Ken Slattery ("Slattery") on how to deal with Satter pending the investigation and thereby "answers

ORDER ­ 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the court's question of what were objective criteria for reasonable and tolerable working conditions that were commensurate with the allegations against [Satter], balanced against the [Department of Ecology's] right to conduct a fair and impartial investigation." Dkt. 84 at 2-3. In addition, Satter argues that the Court should reconsider its Pickering analysis of her prior restraint claim based on the Suggestions Memo because the objective criteria contained in the memo shows that the restrictions placed on Satter were not reasonable to effectuate Defendants' interests in light of the circumstances. Dkt. 81 at 1012. Satter's arguments are flawed for two reasons. First, according to Defendants and the declarations of Department of Ecology employees involved, this Suggestions Memo contained just that, suggestions, and was not a list of instructions to Slattery. See Dkts. 89, 90, 91 & 92. Second, even if the Court considered the memo's suggestions as instructions, it does not change the Court's analysis of the constructive discharge claim, that the working conditions Satter was ultimately subjected to were reasonable and tolerable under the circumstances (Dkt. 79 at 7-11) or the Court's conclusion under Pickering, that the restrictions placed on Satter were "reasonable to effectuate [Defendants'] interests in light of the circumstances." (Dkt. 59 at 10). III. ORDER Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Satter's motions for reconsideration (Dkts. 81 & 84) are DENIED for the reasons stated herein. DATED this 19th day of November 2010.

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge

ORDER ­ 3