Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01537/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01537-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham 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

Best Western International, Inc., a

non-profit Arizona corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

James Furber, an Internet website

administrator, andTeresa Furber; James

and Nidrah Dial, Internet website

bloggers and Members of Best Western

International, Inc.; Loren Unruh, an

Internet website blogger and Member of

Best Western International, Inc., and

Gayle Unruh,

Defendants. 

H. Jim Dial, an individual,

Counterclaimant,

vs.

Best Western International, Inc., a

non-profit Arizona corporation; Nils

Kindgren; Larry McRae; Roman

Jaworowicz; Bonnie McPeake; Charles

Helm; Raymond Johnston; and Dave

Francis,

Counterdefendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1537-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Case 2:06-cv-01537-DGC Document 210 Filed 11/13/07 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 -

The Court issued an order on November 2, 2007, granting in part and denying in part

a request by Plaintiff to designate as confidential portions of certain deposition transcripts.

Dkt. #199. On November 12, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of that order.

Dkt. # 208. The Court will deny the motion.

The Court granted Plaintiff’s request with respect to the portions of the transcripts

relating to the executive sessions of Plaintiff’s Board of Directors. The Court denied the

request with respect to other information relating to Plaintiff’s members because, with the

exception of the Board’s executive sessions, Plaintiff presented no evidence showing that its

members are contractually obligated to keep information about Plaintiff and other members

confidential. Dkt. #199 at 5. Plaintiff contends in the instant motion that its Request for

Member Information form, and its Policy and Procedure regarding attendance by members

at board meetings, show that its members are contractually obligated to keep such

information confidential. Dkt. #208 (citing Dkt. ##208-2 & 208-3).

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to make

new arguments or ask the Court to rethink its analysis. See N.W. Acceptance Corp. v.

Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Rezzonico,

32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). Courts in this District have identified four

circumstances where a motion for reconsideration will be granted: (1) the moving party has

discovered material differences in fact or law from those presented to the Court at the time

of its initial decision, and the party could not previously have known of the factual or legal

differences through the exercise of reasonable diligence; (2) material factual events have

occurred since the Court’s initial decision; (3) there has been a material change in the law

since the Court’s initial decision; or (4) the movant makes a convincing showing that the

Court failed to consider material facts that were presented to the Court at the time of its initial

decision. See Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586

(D. Ariz. 2003).

Plaintiff does not satisfy these standards. Plaintiff did not present its Request for

Member Information form, or its Policy and Procedure, in support of its initial request, and

Case 2:06-cv-01537-DGC Document 210 Filed 11/13/07 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 -

Plaintiff does not argue that it could not have done so through the exercise of reasonable

diligence. Plaintiff’s failure to submit these documents with its original request “does not

turn the late filed documents into ‘newly discovered evidence.’” Sch. Dist. No.

1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations

omitted). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s November 2, 2007 order

(Dkt. #208) is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for expedited consideration (Dkt. #209) is granted.

DATED this 13th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01537-DGC Document 210 Filed 11/13/07 Page 3 of 3