United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Edward J. Lodge, U.S. District Judge
before the Court in the above-entitled matter is
Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. 96.) The
responsive briefing has been filed and the matter is ripe for
the Court's consideration. The facts and legal arguments
are adequately presented in the briefs and record.
Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and
because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional
process would not be significantly aided by oral argument,
the Motion is decided on the record without oral argument.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
filed this action against the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Idaho State Department of
Agriculture (ISDA) alleging violations of various federal and
state statutes with regard to the Defendants' issuance
and implementation of the Interim Rule and Final Rule which
provided regulations for the designation and quarantining of
potato fields in Idaho where Pale Cyst Nematode (PCN),
Globodera Pallida, was detected in the soil as well
as Deregulation Protocols. (Dkt. 1.)Specifically, Plaintiffs
raise claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. §§ 553, 701-706; the Plant Protection Act
(PPA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 7701 and 7786; the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. II, §§
1-16; the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 4321-70; and the Tenth Amendment of the United
March 20, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (Dkt.
95.) Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration requests
review of a portion of the summary judgment Order pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60. (Dkt. 96.)
Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59 provides a means whereby the
Court may order a new trial or alter or amend a judgment.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. The Ninth Circuit has identified three
reasons sufficient to warrant a court's reconsideration
of a prior order: “(1) the district court is presented
with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court
committed clear error or made an initial decision that was
manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in
controlling law.” Zimmerman v. City of
Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (applying
reconsideration to a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend a
judgment); see also School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS,
Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (denying a Rule
59 motion to reconsider a summary judgment ruling). Upon
demonstration of one of these three grounds, the movant must
then come forward with “facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior
decision.” Donaldson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,
947 F.Supp. 429, 430 (D. Haw. 1996).
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that the Court may
reconsider a final judgment or any order based on: “(1)
mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or
discharged judgment; or (6) extraordinary circumstances which
would justify relief.” School Dist. No. 1J, 5
F.3d at 1263. Under Rule 60(b)(6), the so-called catch-all
provision, the party seeking relief “must demonstrate
both injury and circumstances beyond [her] control that
prevented [her] from proceeding with the action in a proper
fashion.” Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co.,
Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006). In addition,
the Ninth Circuit has stated that “[t]o receive relief
under Rule 60(b)(6), a party must demonstrate extraordinary
circumstances which prevented or rendered [her] unable to
prosecute [her] case.” Lal v. California, 610
F.3d 518, 524 (9th Cir. 2010). This Rule must be “used
sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest
injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary
circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to
prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Id.
(quoting United States v. Washington, 394 F.3d 1152,
1157 (9th Cir. 2005)). Any Rule 60(b) motion must be brought
within a reasonable time and no later than one year after
entry of judgment or the order being challenged. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
seek reconsideration of the Court's Order on summary
judgment asking that the relief afforded to Plaintiffs on
their FACA claim be limited to only prospective relief. (Dkt.
96.) Plaintiffs oppose the Motion arguing the relief ordered
by the Court on the FACA claim is consistent with the
applicable law. (Dkt. 97.)
Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on
their FACA claim concluding the Technical Working Group (TWG)
“was a formal FACA advisory committee established and
utilized by APHIS” and Defendants failed to show they
had complied with FACA's procedural requirements. (Dkt.
95.) Accordingly, the Court ordered:
Defendants shall make available, at Plaintiffs' request,
all past recommendations and/or information produced by TWG.
Plaintiffs shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to
review the past materials and comment and/or challenge the
past recommendations and/or information as well as to
challenge the rules and protocols adopted based upon
TWG's past recommendations. Defendants shall provide an
appropriate response and, if necessary, reopen discussions on
the rules and protocols, or issue new rules/protocols
incorporating and addressing Plaintiffs' comments and/or
challenges to the past materials.
As to future agency actions, Defendants are prohibited from
relying on any past recommendations and/or findings of TWG.
Idaho Wool Growers, 637 F.Supp.2d at 880. If TWG, or
any other advisory committee, is assembled in the future to
provide recommendations concerning the PCN protocols,
Defendants are hereby ...