United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Arthur
Roness's Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. #57. On July
11, 2019, this Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment. Dkt. #54. Plaintiff now requests
that the Court reconsider its order based on new evidence
obtained from witness depositions. The Court has determined
that response briefing from Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc.
(“T-Mobile”) is unnecessary. See Local
Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(3).
previous order, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment on three of the five elements for a
reasonable accommodation claim under the Washington Law
Against Discrimination (“WLAD”): (1) Plaintiff
had an impairment that is medically recognizable or
diagnosable or exists as a record or history; (2) Plaintiff
gave his employer notice of the impairment, or no notice was
required because the employer knew about Plaintiff's
impairment; and (3) the impairment had a substantially
limiting effect on Plaintiff's ability to perform his
job, or Plaintiff provided medical documentation to the
employer establishing a reasonable likelihood that working
without an accommodation would aggravate the impairment to
the extent it would create a substantially limiting effect.
Dkt. #54 at 7; RCW 49.60.040(7).
now requests reconsideration of his Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment based on “new evidence” obtained
from the depositions of Dr. Randip Singh (Plaintiff's
physician), Ms. Melysa Miles (T-Mobile's accommodation
manager), and Ms. Zarahy Martinez (representative for
T-Mobile's third-party benefits administrator,
Broadspire). Dkt. #57 at 2.
for reconsideration are disfavored.” Local Rules W.D.
Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). “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.” Id.
Motion does not argue manifest error by the Court in its
prior ruling, nor does it identify a change in the
controlling law. Instead, Plaintiff submits deposition
testimony as “new evidence” compelling the Court
to reverse its previous ruling. For reconsideration of a
summary judgment motion, “evidence is not ‘newly
discovered' if at the time of summary judgment, it
‘could have been discovered with reasonable
diligence.'” Rohr, Inc. v. UPS-Supply Chain
Sols., Inc., 939 F.Supp.2d 1041, 1054 (S.D. Cal. 2013)
(quoting Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885,
892 n. 6 (9th Cir.1994)).
counsel explains that he could not depose Dr. Singh until
June 13, 2019 and could not depose Ms. Miles until June 20,
2019. Dkt. #57 at 3. Ms. Martinez was initially deposed on
May 22, 2019, but parties stipulated to a second deposition
on July 8, 2019 after discovering that T-Mobile's
third-party benefits administrator, Broadspire, failed to
produce responsive discovery materials. Id. However,
Plaintiff filed his motion for partial summary judgment on
April 11, 2019-nearly three months before the close of
discovery and nearly four months before the deadline for
dispositive motions. See Dkt. #13 (Scheduling Order
setting discovery deadline for July 1, 2019; dispositive
motions due by July 30, 2019). Plaintiff could have obtained
these testimonies prior to moving for partial summary
judgment simply by waiting until after completion of
discovery to file his motion. See Rohr, 939
F.Supp.2d at 1054 (“Knight could have obtained Ms.
West's testimony prior to moving for partial summary
judgment if it . . . merely waited until after the completion
of expert discovery to file its motion.”). Accordingly,
none of the deposition testimonies qualify as “newly
discovered evidence” for purposes of a motion for
the Court considers the evidence, Plaintiff's Motion is
without merit. The testimonies do not provide
“uncontroverted” evidence warranting summary
judgment on these three elements of Plaintiff's WLAD
claim. On the contrary, the testimonies raise material
disputes of fact regarding Dr. Singh's diagnosis of Mr.
Roness's condition and the accommodations that Dr. Singh
requested from T-Mobile to address Mr. Roness's diagnosed
paperwork from Dr. Singh requested that T-Mobile modify Mr.
Roness's schedule as follows due to severe sleep apnea:
“Monday thru Friday 0:500am -0:300pm excluding
weekends.” Dkt. #58-1 at 18 (March 22, 2018 letter from
Dr. Singh). Ms. Martinez's testimony confirms that these
same restrictions were reflected in the paperwork submitted
to Broadspire. Id. at 13 (Questionnaire listed
“modification of work schedule with a proposed time of
five a.m. to three p.m. and no weekends” signed by
“the healthcare provider”). Contrary to the
information provided to T-Mobile, Dr. Singh testified that
there was “no medical reason” to exclude Mr.
Roness from working weekends. Dkt. #58-1 at 13. In response
to whether Mr. Roness should work a swing shift, Dr. Singh
ambiguously stated: “Possibly a swing shift.”
Id. Dr. Singh's testimony is likewise unclear as
to whether Mr. Roness's accommodation required working
certain hours or whether it simply required that he work a
consistent schedule, regardless of his shift time.
Compare Dkt. ...