Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02196/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02196-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Olga A. Howard, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of America, N.A., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2196-PHX-ECV

ORDER

Defendant has filed a Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence and Thereupon

Reconsider Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. #70. Defendant asks the court to

reconsider its decision to strike three exhibits that were attached to its motion for summary

judgment. Defendant attaches two new affidavits in an effort to authenticate the stricken

documents. Pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(g), in the absence of an order from the court, Plaintiff has

not filed a response to Defendant's motion.

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders

of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D.Ariz. 1995). “Reconsideration is

appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2)

committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an

intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS,

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to

correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp.

Case 2:04-cv-02196-ECV Document 80 Filed 06/01/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

v. Zlotnicki , 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986). Such

motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had

already thought through — rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F.Supp. at 1351

(quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va.

1983)).

Here, Defendant has not satisfied the standard for reconsideration. Defendant has not

presented any newly discovered evidence, shown clear error or a manifest injustice, or

demonstrated an intervening change in controlling law. Defendant's sole basis for seeking

reconsideration is to provide authentication for documents that it wanted the court to consider

in ruling on its summary judgment motion. However, even if the court had considered the

stricken documents, the outcome would have been the same. For the same reasons set forth

in the summary judgment order, including evidence of an increased workload, three writeups almost immediately after her harassment complaint to HR, and termination soon

thereafter, Plaintiff has presented enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact

on the issue of pretext such that summary judgment on the retaliation claim is not

appropriate. Accordingly, Defendant's motion will be denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That Defendant's Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence and Thereupon

Reconsider Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #70) is denied.

DATED this 1st day of June, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02196-ECV Document 80 Filed 06/01/06 Page 2 of 2