Opinion
NO. CV-09-3032-EFS
06-19-2012
YAKIMA VALLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, a Washington Nonprofit Corporation, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; MARY C. SELECKY, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Washington State Department of Health, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SEAL
Before the Court, without oral argument, are Defendants Washington State Department of Health and Mary Selecky (collectively, "Defendants") Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital's Motion to Strike Portions of Supplemental Declaration, ECF No. 280, related Motion to Expedite, ECF NO. 284, and Motion to Seal Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Dr. Keith B. Leffler's Expert Testimony and Supporting Declarations and Exhibits, ECF No. 271. After reviewing the parties' submissions, the record in this matter, and applicable authority, the Court is fully informed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Defendants' motion for reconsideration and denies as moot Defendants' motion to seal.
I. Motion for Reconsideration
Defendants ask the Court to reconsider its May 18, 2012 ruling granting Plaintiff Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital's (YVMH) Motion to Strike Parts of Defendants['] Reply to Memorial's Opposition to Summary Judgment and Declarations of Bart Eggen and John Raba, M.D., ECF No. 277 at 6-7, on the ground that they did not have the opportunity to oppose YVMH's motion. Defendants ask the Court to expedite hearing on their motion so that it may be heard before their pending motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 133.
Though the Court reiterates its earlier admonition that motions to expedite are only to be filed for "emergency matter[s]," see ECF No. 277 at 2-3, the Court finds good cause to hear Defendants' motion on an expedited basis.
Under the Court's Amended Scheduling Order in effect at the time of Defendants' motion (which has since been superseded, see ECF No. 292), motions to reconsider must be brought in accord with CR 7(h) of the local rules for the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. ECF No. 85 at 6-7. That Rule provides:
(1) Standard. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The [C]ourt 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.W.D. Wash. CR 7(h). See also Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581, 583-86 (D. Ariz. 2003) (surveying local rules of districts throughout the Ninth Circuit that pertain to motions for reconsideration).
Because Defendants' motion does not satisfy the above-cited standard, but rather directly addresses the arguments made in YVMH's moving papers, it does not demonstrate that the Court should reconsider its earlier ruling. Furthermore, while the Court does not strike all of the materials referenced in YVMH's motion, the Court remains convinced of the propriety of its rather unremarkable ruling that it "will not consider irrelevant statements or legal conclusions in ruling on Defendants' motion for summary judgment." ECF No. 277 at 7. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for reconsideration is denied.
II. Motion to Seal
Defendants move to seal their materials submitted in response to YVMH's Motion to Exclude Dr. Keith B. Leffler's Expert Testimony because they reference materials filed by YVMH that were placed under seal on April 26, 2012. See ECF No. 210. In their memoranda, Defendants state that if the Court granted their then-pending motion to unseal the April 26, 2012-sealed filings, its motion would be moot. On May 18, 2012, the Court granted Defendants' motion to unseal. ECF No. 277 at 3. Accordingly, because the Court has already unsealed the referenced materials, Defendants' motion to seal is denied as moot.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendants' Motion to Expedite Hearing on Their Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital's Motion to Strike Portions of Supplemental Declaration, ECF No. 284 , is GRANTED.
2. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital's Motion to Strike Portions of Supplemental Declaration, ECF No. 280 , is DENIED.
3. Defendants' Motion to Seal Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Dr. Keith B. Leffler's Expert Testimony and Supporting Declarations and Exhibits, ECF No. 271 , is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and distribute copies to counsel.
___________________________
EDWARD F. SHEA
Senior United States District Judge
Q:\Civil\2009\3032.deny.reconsid.2.lc2.wpd