Ground Zero Center for Non-Violent Action et al v. United States Department of the Navy et al

Filing 73

ORDER denying 70 Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9
10

Case Nos.: 12-cv-5537

GROUND ZERO CENTER FOR
NONVIOLENT ACTION,
WASHINGTON PHYSICIANS FOR
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, and GLEN
S. MILNER,

ORDER

11

(Dkt. #70)
Plaintiffs,

12
13

and

14
THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE,
15
Plaintiff,

16
17
18

v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE NAVY, et al.,

19
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24

1

1

Plaintiffs request reconsideration of the Court’s Order on the their Motion to Unseal

2 Records and to Lift Restraints on Use of Records (Dkt. #70).
3

Under Local Rule 7(h):

4

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.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

The Ninth Circuit has called reconsideration an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in
the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of
Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s
Federal Practice § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 2000). “Indeed, a motion for reconsideration should not be
granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly
discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling
law.” Id. (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).
Plaintiffs request an order “memorializing” the Court’s oral rulings on December 7, 2012.
Although the Court indicated that it would produce a modified order, it does not appear
necessary. Mr. Hajek’s summary, presented on page 3 of Plaintiffs’ motion, appears correct, and
the oral rulings in the record are thus sufficient.
Plaintiffs’ motion (Dkt. #70) is DENIED.

18
19

Dated this 17th day of January 2013.

20

A

21
22

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

23
24

2