Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02460/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02460-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

Kathy Grismore,

Plaintiff,

v.

Capital One F.S.B., Capital One Services,

Inc., and Capital One Bank,

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-2460-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Kathy Grismore’s (Ms. Grismore) Motion for

Reconsideration of the Court’s Order directing her to produce unredacted credit reports and

tax returns. (Doc. 110).

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a "motion to reconsider." A

litigant subject to an adverse judgment may file either a motion to alter or amend the

judgment under Rule 59(e) or a motion seeking relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule

60(b). However, these rules only provide relief from judgments that are "final, appealable

orders." United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 59(e) allows

for the alteration or amendment of a "judgment" within ten days after "entry of the

judgment," FED.R.CIV.P. 59(e), where "judgment" is defined as a decree and any order from

which an appeal lies. FED. R. CIV. P. 54(a). Rule 60(b) does not provide relief from

judgments, orders, or proceedings which are not "final," that is, are not final decisions within

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and generally cannot be appealed immediately. See Sch.

Case 2:05-cv-02460-SMM Document 117 Filed 03/03/08 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

Dist. No. 5 v. Lundgren, 259 F.2d 101, 104 (9th Cir. 1958); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)

advisory committee's note ("The addition of the qualifying word 'final' emphasizes the

character of the judgments, orders or proceedings from which Rule 60(b) affords relief; and

hence interlocutory judgments are not brought within the restrictions of the rule, but rather

they are left subject to the complete power of the court rendering them to afford such relief

from them as justice requires.").

Nevertheless, the trial court has the inherent power to reconsider, set aside, or amend

interlocutory orders at any time prior to entry of a final judgment. Lundgren, 259 F.2d at

104; see generally also John Simmons Co. v. Grier Bros. Co., 258 U.S. 82 (1922).

Under the "law of the case doctrine," courts do not "reexamine an issue previously

decided by the same or higher court in the same case." Lucas Auto. Eng'g, Inc. v.

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 F.3d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 2001). The doctrine is not a

limitation on a tribunal's power, but rather a guide to discretion. Arizona v. California, 460

U.S. 605, 618 (1983). A court may have discretion to depart from the law of the case where:

(1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; (2) there has been an intervening change of law;

(3) the evidence is substantially different; (4) other changed circumstances exist; or (5) a

manifest injustice would otherwise result. United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th

Cir. 1997). A district court abuses its discretion when it applies the doctrine of the law of the

case without one of these five requisite conditions. Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).

II. DISCUSSION

Ms. Grismore brought this action against Defendants for alleged violations of

provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Despite the fact that the documents requested

by Defendants contain information both relevant and necessary to this case, Ms. Grismore

steadfastly contends that the Court should refrain from compelling her to produce the

aforementioned unredacted credit reports and tax returns to Defendants, as Defendants’

Case 2:05-cv-02460-SMM Document 117 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

request is “improper”. Ms. Grismore, however, has failed to provide the Court with authority

supporting her contention that Defendants’ request is improper. Furthermore, Ms. Grismore

has failed to establish any of the requisite conditions under the “law of the case doctrine” that

would permit the Court to reconsider its previous finding. Alexander, 106 F.3d at 876. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

(Doc. 110). 

DATED this 3rd day of March, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-02460-SMM Document 117 Filed 03/03/08 Page 3 of 3