United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JqUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant GEO Group,
Inc.'s (“GEO”) motion for reconsideration.
Dkt. 209. The Court has considered the pleadings filed
regarding the motion and the file herein.
case arises out of GEO's alleged failure to compensate
immigration detainees at the Northwest Detention Center
(“NDC”), a private detention center, in accord
with the Washington Minimum Wage Act (“MWA”).
Dkt. 1. GEO now seeks reconsideration of an order granting
the State's motion for partial summary judgment and that
portion of that order denying its request to strike or defer
the State's partial motion for summary judgment (Dkt.
202). Dkt. 209. For the reasons provided below, the motion
(Dkt. 209) should be denied.
RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
background facts and procedural history are in the May 13,
2019 Order on Washington's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on the GEO Group, Inc.'s Affirmative Defenses
(Dkt. 202, at 1-4) and are adopted here.
13, 2019 order denied GEO's request to strike or defer
the State's motion for partial summary judgment on
GEO's affirmative defenses of laches, unclean hands and
failure to join necessary parties (Department of Homeland
Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(collectively “ICE”) and the Washington State
Department of Labor & Industries (“L &
I”)). Dkt. 202. The order dismissed the laches defense
because laches is not a cognizable defense against the State
in this enforcement action and, even if it was, GEO failed to
point to genuine issues of fact as to the defense.
Id. The defense of unclean hands was dismissed
because, under Washington law, the State's treatment of
its own inmates is not relevant to its ability to bring an
enforcement action against GEO. Id. The order also
dismissed the affirmative defense of failure to join
necessary parties, noting that GEO made no showing on either
proposed party. Id. The Court's rulings were
based on applicable law.
moves for reconsideration of the portion of the order (Dkt.
202) which denied its request to strike or defer
consideration of the State's partial motion for summary
judgment. Dkt. 209. It argues that it provided declaration of
counsel stating that depositions of state agencies had been
noted, but had not occurred, and that document production was
ongoing. Id. As it relates to its affirmative
defenses, GEO asserts that it expects, through additional
discovery, to learn: “when the State (or the State
Agencies) first learned about the Voluntary Work Program
(“VWP”), the extent of that knowledge, the
reasonableness of the State's delay in bringing the
action (which the State admits is at least three and a half
years), and the State's use of work programs that do not
pay minimum wage.” Id., at 4-5.
Rule W.D. Wash. 7 (h)(1) provides: “[m]otions 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.” Under Fed.R.Civ.P.
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.
“A party seeking additional discovery under Rule 56 (d)
must explain what further discovery would reveal that is
essential to justify its opposition' to the motion for
summary judgment.” Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc.,
899 F.3d 666, 678 (9th Cir. 2018)(cert. denied, 139
S.Ct. 1222 (2019)(internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). “In particular, the requesting party
must show that: (1) it has set forth in affidavit form the
specific facts it hopes to elicit from further discovery; (2)
the facts sought exist; and (3) the sought-after facts are
essential to oppose summary judgment.” Id.
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 209) should be denied. GEO
has failed to make 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 [the court's]
attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” The
reasoning from the May 13, 2019 order is adopted. In
particular, GEO has not demonstrated that the
“sought-after facts are essential to oppose summary
judgment.” The facts that GEO seeks are not relevant to
these affirmative defenses. “A party seeking to delay
summary judgment for further discovery must state what other
specific evidence it hopes to discover and the relevance
of that evidence to its claims.” Stevens,
at 678 (emphasis added). GEO has failed to
demonstrate that the evidence it seeks is relevant to the
affirmative defenses that were at issue in the partial motion
for summary judgment. Further evidentiary facts would not
change the Court's rulings. GEO's motion for
reconsideration should be denied.