United States District Court, D. Arizona
For Arizona Dream Act Coalition, Jesus Castro-Martinez, Christian Jacobo, Alejandra Lopez, Ariel Martinez, Natalia Perez-Gallegos, Plaintiffs: Andrew S Jacob, LEAD ATTORNEY, Polsinelli Shughart PC - Phoenix, AZ, Phoenix, AZ; Cecillia D Wang, Jennifer Chang Newell, Michael King Thomas Tan, Rodkangyil Orion Danjuma, LEAD ATTORNEYS, ACLU - San Francisco, CA, San Francisco, CA; Daniel Joseph Pochoda, James Duff Lyall, Kelly Joyce Flood, LEAD ATTORNEYS, ACLU - Phoenix, AZ, Phoenix, AZ; Jorge Martin Castillo, Victor Viramontes, LEAD ATTORNEYS, MALDEF - Los Angeles, CA, Los Angeles, CA; Karen Cassandra Tumlin, Linton Joaquin, Nicholas David Espiritu, Nora A Preciado, Shiu-Ming Cheer, LEAD ATTORNEYS, National Immigration Law Ctr, Los Angeles, CA; Lee Gelernt, LEAD ATTORNEY, ACLU - New York, NY, New York, NY; Marty Harper, LEAD ATTORNEY, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Phoenix, AZ; Tanya Broder, LEAD ATTORNEY, National Immigration Law Center - Oakland, CA, Oakland, CA; Thomas K Irvine, LEAD ATTORNEY, Polsinelli Shughart, Phoenix, AZ.
For Janice K Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official capacity, Defendant: Doug C Northup, Sean Thomas Hood, Timothy J Berg, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Fennemore Craig PC - Phoenix, AZ, Phoenix, AZ; Joseph Sciarrotta, Jr., Office of the Governor, Phoenix, AZ.
For John S Halikowski, Director of the Arizona Department of Transportation, in his official capacity, Stacey K Stanton, Assistant Director of the Motor Vehicle Division of the Arizona Department of Transportation, in her official capacity, Defendants: Doug C Northup, Sean Thomas Hood, Timothy J Berg, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Fennemore Craig PC - Phoenix, AZ, Phoenix, AZ.
David G. Campbell, United States District Judge.
On May 16, 2013, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc. 114. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration. Doc. 117. The Court will deny the motion.
Motions for reconsideration " are disfavored and will be granted only upon a showing of manifest error or new facts or legal authority which could not have been raised earlier with reasonable diligence." In re Rosson, 545 F.3d 764, 769 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted); see also S.E.C. v. Kuipers, 399 Fed.Appx. 167, 170 (9th Cir. 2010); LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM (ECV), 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008). Nor should a motion for reconsideration be used to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. Id. ; Nw. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988).
Plaintiffs argue that the Court's February 8, 2013, discovery order (Doc. 76) barred Plaintiffs from relying on evidence relating to their fear of prosecution only if Plaintiffs foreclosed Defendants from discovering how Plaintiffs drove and drive (Doc. 117 at 12-15). Plaintiffs made the same argument in their reply brief in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc. 97 at 36. The discovery order barred Defendants from inquiring into how Plaintiffs were able to drive, obtain jobs, and engage in similar activities without valid Arizona driver's licenses. In exchange for this protection -- requested by Plaintiffs -- the order precluded Plaintiffs from arguing that they are irreparably harmed by being forced to engage in illegal activities or by fear of prosecution for engaging in illegal activities. Doc. 76. The Court addressed these matters in its ruling on the preliminary injunction request (Doc. 114 at 36 n. 11), and Plaintiffs may not re-urge their interpretation of the discovery order in a motion for reconsideration. See Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rogers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003) (" No motion for reconsideration shall repeat in any manner any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion." ). 
The remainder of Plaintiffs' arguments depend on the Court accepting Plaintiffs' interpretation of the discovery order. Doc. 117 at 16-19. Plaintiffs argue that evidence of individual Plaintiffs' fear of prosecution for driving without a license is relevant and that all relevant evidence must be considered unless an evidentiary
rule or other source of law supports the exclusion of that evidence. Doc. 117 at 16. As previously noted, the Court's discovery order precluded Plaintiffs from arguing that they are irreparably harmed by fear of prosecution for driving without a valid driver's license.  Plaintiffs argue that Defendants inquired into how individual Plaintiffs were able to drive and thus " opened the door" to Plaintiffs' argument that they are irreparably harmed by fear of prosecution for driving without a license. Doc. 117 at 17. This argument was also previously asserted by Plaintiffs, rejected by the Court, and need not be reconsidered.
Plaintiffs' motion fails to mention that the Court also declined to consider whether they are irreparably harmed by fear of prosecution because the argument was made for the first time in their reply brief. Doc. 114 at 37 n.12. ...