Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Valley Wide Plastering Construction Incorporated ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Acting Secretary of Labor, United States No. CV-18-04756-PHX-GMS Department of Labor, 10 ORDER Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 Valley Wide Plastering Construction 13 Incorporated, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Acting Secretary of Labor, United States 17 Department of Labor’s (the “Secretary”) Motion to Reconsider Order Requiring Disclosure 18 of Informants. (Doc. 125.) For the following reasons, the Motion is denied. 19 BACKGROUND 20 The facts in this case are set forth in the Order granting the Secretary’s Motion for 21 a Protective Order and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 123.) In that Order, the 22 Court ordered that the Secretary reveal the identities of his informants testifying at trial and 23 their unredacted witness statements by April 2, 2021. Id. at 4. The Secretary argues that 24 the Court erred in requiring disclosure of the informants’ identities by April 2. 25 DISCUSSION 26 “The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a 27 showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have 28 been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” L.R. Civ. P. 7.2(g)(1); see 1 also Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) 2 (noting that motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the Court “(1) is presented with 3 newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 4 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law”), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 5 1236; Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. 6 Ariz. 2003) (holding that a motion for reconsideration is appropriate only when there is 7 newly-discovered fact or law, newly-occurring facts, a material change in the law, or upon 8 a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider material facts that were presented 9 before the initial decision). A motion for reconsideration is an inappropriate vehicle to ask 10 the Court to “rethink what the court has already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” See 11 United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (quoting Above the 12 Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). “Arguments 13 that a court was in error on the issues it considered should be directed to the court of 14 appeals.” Defs. of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995) (quoting 15 Refrigeration Sales Co., Inc. v. Mitchell-Jackson, Inc., 605 F. Supp. 6, 7 (N.D. Ill. 1983)). 16 The Secretary asserts that the Court should reconsider its order because (1) the 17 public interest in protecting his informants requires delaying disclosure until close 18 proximity to trial; and (2) new evidence of retaliation shows that his informants will face 19 harm if their identities are revealed on April 2. 20 First, the Secretary does not present binding or new authority that requiring 21 disclosure of his testifying informants’ identities before a trial date is set, but after the close 22 of discovery, is contrary to the law. That other courts have come to a different conclusion 23 on when disclosure of informants’ identities is appropriate creates no binding precedent 24 and demonstrates no clear error. See, e.g., Reno v. W. Cab Co., No. 218CV00840APGNJK, 25 2020 WL 2462900, at *4 (D. Nev. May 1, 2020) (“The existence of persuasive authority 26 reaching a contrary result does not establish clear error as necessary to justify 27 reconsideration.”). 28 Second, Defendant Valley Wide Plastering Construction Incorporated’s (“Valley 1 || Wide’) alleged retaliatory termination of Mr. Figueroa does not necessitate reconsideration 2|| of the disclosure deadline. The Secretary had already put the Court on notice of Valley || Wide’s alleged retaliation against 1ts employees in his briefing for the protective order. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons stated above, the Secretary’s Motion is denied. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Acting Secretary of Labor, United States 7\| Department of Labor’s Motion to Reconsider Order Requiring Disclosure of Informants (Doc. 125) is DENIED. 9 Dated this 23rd day of February, 2021. 10 - i A Whacrsay Fotos 12 Chief United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-