RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the court sua sponte. On May 7, 2013, the court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment. Dkt. # 197. In that order, the court noted that it appeared that plaintiff had not filed a response to defendant Independent Electrical Services, Inc.'s ("IES") motion, but that it would construe plaintiff's response to defendant Independent Electrical Contractors of Washington Educational Training Fund ("IEC") as a response to IES's motion as well. Id. at 1 n.1. On June 5, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). Dkt. # 199. In that motion, plaintiff noted, among other things, that plaintiff's response to IES's motion was filed as Dkt. Nos. 180 and 181 under seal. Id. at 10 n.4. On November 26, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's motion. Dkt. # 215. In that order the court noted that although plaintiff argued that the court did not review Dkt. # 181, that document appeared to be a pleading filed in an unrelated case that had no bearing in this action. Id. at 2 n.1. On or around December 4, 2013, the clerk's office received a telephone call from Mr. Salas regarding Dkt. # 181 and the court's order. Subsequently, the clerk's office searched for and found the scanned image of plaintiff's response to IES's motion. The court attached the response to its December 9, 2013 minute order. Dkt. # 216. That response relies on the same evidence submitted by Mr. Salas that the court reviewed in its order granting summary judgment. The court has now reviewed plaintiff's response to IES's motion, and the court finds that it does not change the court's analysis in its order granting summary judgment for IEC and IES. The court has also reviewed plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion again, and finds that the court's holdings that the motion was untimely and that plaintiff has not met the requisite standard remains the same. Argument is not evidence. The court reviewed all the evidence filed prior to issuing its order granting summary judgment.
For all the foregoing reasons, the court finds that plaintiff's response to IES's motion for summary judgment (attached to Dkt. # 216) does not change the court's analysis in its order granting summary judgment or in its order denying plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment. No further ...