Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02056/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02056-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

George F. Bobolas, a Greek individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

John Does 1-100, Internet website

bloggers, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2056-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Public Citizen, Inc. moves for reconsideration of this Court’s denial of intervention.

Doc. 22. A motion for reconsideration will be denied “absent a showing of manifest error

or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s]

attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342

F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for

reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008). Nor

should reconsideration be used to make new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink its

analysis. Id.; see Nw. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th

Cir. 1988).

Public Citizen’s key argument in intervention was that Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l

Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470 (9th Cir. 1992), eliminated two of the three requirements that Rule

24(b)(1) imposes for permissive intervention, leaving timeliness as the sole inquiry where

intervention is sought to unseal court documents. Doc. 20 at 2. The Court rejected this

argument, holding that Beckman did not eliminate the “commonality nexus” requirement.

Case 2:10-cv-02056-DGC Document 23 Filed 03/03/11 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

1

 Public Citizen cites for support to Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, 858 F.2d 775 (1st

Cir. 1988). Liggett Group is inapposite, however, because the relevant issue on appeal was

“timeliness” – an issue that this Court did not need to address in this case (Doc. 21).

- 2 -

Doc. 21 at 3. The motion for reconsideration does not identify new facts or a change in law.

Instead, Public Citizen argues that “[m]edia intervenors never have any claims or defenses

in common with any of the existing parties, but their right to intervene is routinely

acknowledged.” Doc. 22 at 1:25-26. Although Public Citizen does not argue that it is a

media intervenor, it nonetheless asserts that it “has the same right as mainstream media

companies to intervene for the purpose of unsealing.”1

 Id. at 2:12-14. Public Citizen did not

make this argument in its motion to intervene or in its reply, however. See Docs. 17, 20.

Despite the “media vs. non-media” distinction appearing nowhere in Public Citizen’s earlier

briefs (see Docs. 17, 20), movant now seeks to re-argue its position on this basis. A motion

for reconsideration is not the proper vehicle to make new arguments. The motion will,

therefore, be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 22) is denied.

DATED this 3rd day of March, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02056-DGC Document 23 Filed 03/03/11 Page 2 of 2