Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-00563/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-00563-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nikola Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Trevor R Milton,

Defendant.

No. CV-24-00563-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

Defendant Trevor R. Milton (“Milton”) has filed a Motion for Reconsideration

(Doc. 63) with respect to the Court’s June 20, 2024, Minute Entry (Doc. 62) ordering that 

the documents lodged under seal at Docs. 46, 47, and 56 shall be filed and become part of 

the public record according to Arizona Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.6(d). Milton

urges the Court to reconsider its Minute Entry as to Doc. 56-1 only, and require that 

document to remain lodged under seal because it is the same document at issue in a 

pending discovery dispute on Milton’s “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 

ONLY” (“AEO”) designations (Doc. 51).1(Doc. 63 at 2). For the following reasons, the 

Court will deny Milton’s Motion for Reconsideration but order that Doc. 56-1 remain 

lodged under seal until the Court resolves the pending discovery dispute.

I. Legal Standard

Local Rule 7.2 provides “[t]he Court will ordinarily deny a motion for 

1 The pending discovery dispute (Doc 51) is fully briefed. In accordance with the Court’s 

May 23, 2024, Order (Doc. 52), Milton filed a Sealed Memorandum in Support of his 

AEO Designations (Doc. 58) and Nikola filed a Sealed Response Brief (Doc. 60).

Case 2:24-cv-00563-DJH Document 67 Filed 06/25/24 Page 1 of 4
- 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

reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts 

or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable 

diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). The movant must specify “[a]ny new matters being 

brought to the Court’s attention for the first time and the reasons they were not presented 

earlier.” Id. This is because “[m]otions for [r]econsideration may not be used to raise 

arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 

raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 

890 (9th Cir. 2000); Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare 

circumstances. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).

II. Discussion 

Milton urges the Court to reconsider its Minute Entry ordering that Doc. 56-1 shall 

be filed and become part of the public record according to Local Rule 5.6(d). 

(See generally Doc. 63). Local Rule 5.6(d) provides the following procedure for filing a 

document that has been designated as confidential by a party but when another party 

disputes the designation:

[T]he submitting party must lodge the document (or proposed filing) under 

seal and file and serve a notice of lodging summarizing the parties’ dispute 

and setting forth the submitting party’s position, accompanied by a 

certification that the parties have conferred in good faith and were unable to 

agree about whether the document (or proposed filing) should be filed 

under seal. Within fourteen (14) days after service of the notice, the 

designating party must file and serve either a notice withdrawing the 

confidentiality designation or a motion to seal and a supporting 

memorandum that sets forth the facts and legal authority justifying the 

filing of the document (or proposed filing) under seal. If the designating 

party seeks to have the document (or proposed filing) filed under seal, the 

motion must append (as a separate attachment) a proposed order granting 

the motion to seal. No response to the motion may be filed. If the 

designating party does not file a motion or notice as required by this 

subsection, the Court may enter an order making the document (or 

proposed filing) part of the public record due to Defendant’s failure to file.

LRCiv. 5.6(d) (emphasis added). 

Case 2:24-cv-00563-DJH Document 67 Filed 06/25/24 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

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

Here, Doc. 56-1 is a redacted bank statement of Milton that Nikola attached as an 

exhibit to its Opposition to Milton’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 56). Before filing its 

Opposition to Milton’s Motion to Dismiss, and in compliance with Local Rule 5.6(d), 

Nikola filed a “Notice of Lodging Documents Under [S]eal” (Doc. 55) stating that 

(1) Milton designated Doc. 56-1, among other documents, as AEO; (2) Nikola disagrees 

that Doc. 56-1 merits AEO designation; and (3) the parties met and conferred in good 

faith and have been unable to agree on the designations. Nikola also lodged Doc. 56-1 

under seal. Despite Nikola’s Notice, Milton failed to file a motion that justifies the filing

of Doc. 56-1 under seal. In light of Milton’s failure to file such a motion, the Court 

issued its Minute Entry and ordered that Doc. 56-1 become part of the public record, as 

permitted by Local Rule 5.6(d).

In his Motion for Reconsideration, Milton “acknowledges he should have moved 

pursuant to Local Rule 5.6(d) out of an abundance of caution.” (Doc. 63 at 2). Even so, 

Milton argues that because his designation of Doc. 56-1 as AEO is presently at issue in 

the parties’ discovery dispute and subject to the Court’s in camera review, and thus he 

“did not believe it was necessary to separately move pursuant to Local Rule 5.6(d) to 

maintain the sealed status of that document.” (Id. at 2). Milton erred when doing so.

The Court is not responsible for cross-referencing and classifying the parties’ case 

documents. Local Rule 5.6 requires a Notice—which Nikola filed—and then a motion to 

seal if the classifying party wants to keep the document sealed—which Milton failed to 

file. Local Rule 5.6 does not require the Court to independently review the documents 

after a Notice is filed and make a determination for the parties. So, the Court did not 

commit manifest error when ordering Doc. 56-1 become part of the public record. See 

LRCiv. 5.6(d). Rather, Milton clearly erred when failing to file the necessary motion. Id. 

Nor did Milton make any effort to raise with the Court that Doc. 56-1 is at issue in the

pending discovery dispute. For these reasons, Milton’s Motion for Reconsideration will 

be denied. However, the Court will construe Milton’s arguments in his Motion for 

Reconsideration regarding Doc. 56-1 as an untimely motion to seal under Local Rule 5.6,

Case 2:24-cv-00563-DJH Document 67 Filed 06/25/24 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

and excuse Milton’s lateness under the circumstances. Doc. 56-1 only shall remain 

lodged under seal until the Court resolve the parties’ discovery dispute, which is ripe for 

review. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Trevor R. Milton’s Motion for Reconsideration 

(Doc. 63) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Trevor R. Milton’s arguments in 

his Motion for Reconsideration as to (Doc. 56-1) is construed as an untimely motion to 

seal under Arizona Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.6. The Court will excuse Defendant 

Trevor R. Milton’s lateness under the circumstances as stated herein.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Doc. 56-1 shall remain lodged under seal until 

the Court resolves the parties’ pending discovery dispute (see Docs. 51; 56; 57).

Dated this 24th day of June, 2024.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:24-cv-00563-DJH Document 67 Filed 06/25/24 Page 4 of 4