State of Washington v. The GEO Group Inc

Filing 211

ORDER denying 209 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10
11
12
13

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 17-5806 RJB
ORDER ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

THE GEO GROUP, INC.,

14

Defendant.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant GEO Group, Inc.’s (“GEO”) motion

17

for reconsideration. Dkt. 209. The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the

18

motion and the file herein.

19

This case arises out of GEO’s alleged failure to compensate immigration detainees at the

20

Northwest Detention Center (“NDC”), a private detention center, in accord with the Washington

21

Minimum Wage Act (“MWA”). Dkt. 1. GEO now seeks reconsideration of an order granting

22

the State’s motion for partial summary judgment and that portion of that order denying its

23

request to strike or defer the State’s partial motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 202). Dkt. 209.

24

For the reasons provided below, the motion (Dkt. 209) should be denied.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1
2

I.

RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The background facts and procedural history are in the May 13, 2019 Order on Washington’s

3

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the GEO Group, Inc.’s Affirmative Defenses (Dkt.

4

202, at 1-4) and are adopted here.

5

The May 13, 2019 order denied GEO’s request to strike or defer the State’s motion for

6

partial summary judgment on GEO’s affirmative defenses of laches, unclean hands and failure to

7

join necessary parties (Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs

8

Enforcement (collectively “ICE”) and the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries

9

(“L & I”)). Dkt. 202. The order dismissed the laches defense because laches is not a cognizable

10

defense against the State in this enforcement action and, even if it was, GEO failed to point to

11

genuine issues of fact as to the defense. Id. The defense of unclean hands was dismissed

12

because, under Washington law, the State’s treatment of its own inmates is not relevant to its

13

ability to bring an enforcement action against GEO. Id. The order also dismissed the affirmative

14

defense of failure to join necessary parties, noting that GEO made no showing on either proposed

15

party. Id. The Court’s rulings were based on applicable law.

16

PENDING MOTION

17

GEO now moves for reconsideration of the portion of the order (Dkt. 202) which denied its

18

request to strike or defer consideration of the State’s partial motion for summary judgment. Dkt.

19

209. It argues that it provided declaration of counsel stating that depositions of state agencies

20

had been noted, but had not occurred, and that document production was ongoing. Id. As it

21

relates to its affirmative defenses, GEO asserts that it expects, through additional discovery, to

22

learn: “when the State (or the State Agencies) first learned about the Voluntary Work Program

23

(“VWP”), the extent of that knowledge, the reasonableness of the State’s delay in bringing the

24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

1

action (which the State admits is at least three and a half years), and the State’s use of work

2

programs that do not pay minimum wage.” Id., at 4-5.

3

II.

DISCUSSION

4

Local Rule W.D. Wash. 7 (h)(1) provides: “[m]otions for reconsideration are disfavored. The

5

court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior

6

ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its

7

attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (d):

8
9
10

If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it
cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition [to a motion for summary
judgment], the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow
time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other
appropriate order.

11

“A party seeking additional discovery under Rule 56 (d) must explain what further discovery

12

would reveal that is essential to justify its opposition’ to the motion for summary judgment.”

13

Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc., 899 F.3d 666, 678 (9th Cir. 2018)(cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1222

14

(2019)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “In particular, the requesting party must

15

show that: (1) it has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts it hopes to elicit from further

16

discovery; (2) the facts sought exist; and (3) the sought-after facts are essential to oppose

17

summary judgment.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

18

GEO’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 209) should be denied. GEO has failed to make

19

a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority

20

which could not have been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”

21

The reasoning from the May 13, 2019 order is adopted. In particular, GEO has not demonstrated

22

that the “sought-after facts are essential to oppose summary judgment.” The facts that GEO

23

seeks are not relevant to these affirmative defenses. “A party seeking to delay summary

24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3

1

judgment for further discovery must state what other specific evidence it hopes to discover and

2

the relevance of that evidence to its claims.” Stevens, at 678 (emphasis added). GEO has failed

3

to demonstrate that the evidence it seeks is relevant to the affirmative defenses that were at issue

4

in the partial motion for summary judgment. Further evidentiary facts would not change the

5

Court’s rulings. GEO’s motion for reconsideration should be denied.

6
7
8
9
10
11

III.

ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that:
•

GEO’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying its motion to defer or
deny the State’s motion for summary judgment pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (d)
(Dkt. 209) IS DENIED; and
o The May 13, 2019 Order on Washington’s Motion for Partial Summary

12

Judgment on the GEO Group, Inc.’s Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. 202) IS

13

AFFIRMED.

14
15
16
17
18
19

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and
to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
Dated this 23rd day of May, 2019.

A
ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4