Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00728/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00728-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Grissom, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Freeport-McMoran Morenci, Inc., et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-0728-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant Freeport-McMoran has moved for reconsideration of this Court’s

August 31, 2010 order (Doc. 100) denying in part Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment. Doc. 101. Defendant argues that Plaintiff Tracey Grissom complained only about

“her male co-workers . . . treating her poorly because she is female” and about “the

situation,” but not about “sexual harassment.” Doc. 101 at 7. Accordingly, Defendant

reasons, Plaintiff has not shown a genuine dispute of fact about whether she put the employer

on notice of sexual harassment. Id.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

circumstances. See Stetter v. Blackpool, No. CV 09-1071-PHX-DGC, 2009 WL 3348522,

at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct.15, 2009). 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

Case 2:09-cv-00728-DGC Document 104 Filed 10/15/10 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

 Summary judgment in favor of a defendant is not appropriate where plaintiff has

shown a genuine factual dispute about whether the defendant was on notice of sexual

harassment and failed to respond appropriately. See Hardage v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 427

F.3d 1177, 1187 (9th Cir. 2005). As evident from this Court’s August 31 order, Plaintiff has

made the requisite showing.

- 2 -

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 N. W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc.,

841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988).

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 moving party 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, e.g., Motorola,

Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).

Defendant’s argument fails to satisfy the above factors. As Defendant acknowledges,

the Court did consider the relevant statements in the record and in the parties’ motions in its

August 31 order. Moreover, Defendant does not point to new law requiring a plaintiff to use

the words “sexual harassment” explicitly while giving notice to the employer or in its

evidence opposing summary judgment.1

 The Court will deny Defendant’s motion.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 101) is denied.

DATED this 15th day of October, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00728-DGC Document 104 Filed 10/15/10 Page 2 of 2