Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08207/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08207-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 30:1276 Interior: Review of Agency Action

---

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 

Center for Biological Diversity; Grand 

Canyon Trust; Sierra Club; Kaibab Band of 

Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian 

Reservation; and the Havasupai Tribe, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior; 

United States Bureau of Land Management; 

Denison Arizona Strip, LLC; and Denison 

Mines (USA) Corp., 

Defendants.

No. CV-09-8207-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

 

 On May 27, 2011, the Court issued an order granting summary judgment in favor 

of Defendants on claims one, two, three, and five of the third amended complaint. 

Doc. 163. With respect to claim four, the case was remanded to BLM for further 

consideration, and BLM was given until June 24, 2011 to revise its decision to apply a 

categorical exclusion to the free use permit. Id. at 26. BLM has submitted its revised 

decision. Doc. 165. A briefing schedule is in place for the parties to address the merits 

of claim four in light of the revised decision and any remedies the Court should impose if 

it grants summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. Id. at 27. 

 Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment order. 

Case 3:09-cv-08207-DGC Document 166 Filed 06/27/11 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Doc. 164. The motion will be denied because Plaintiffs have not met the high standard to 

obtain reconsideration. 

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

circumstances. Such a motion is 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, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 1776502, 

at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008). 

 Plaintiffs seek reconsideration with respect to two issues. First, Plaintiffs assert 

that they should be permitted to conduct discovery and file a brief on the remedy for 

claim four before a final summary judgment ruling. Id. at 2-4. Plaintiffs note that 

discovery related to a possible remedy in this case has been deferred until after liability 

issues were resolved (Doc. 101), but that decision was made before Plaintiffs asserted 

claim four in the third amended complaint (Doc. 126). Plaintiffs do not describe the 

discovery they wish to conduct concerning claim four, nor do they explain why further 

briefing is necessary regarding the remand issue. The motion for reconsideration will be 

denied in this respect. 

 Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the scope of review on remand based on 

purported inconsistencies between the Court’s factual and legal findings. Doc. 164 

at 4-5. According to Plaintiffs, the Court limited BLM’s consideration on remand 

“to exclude review of the Arizona 1 mine.” Id. at 5. No such limitation has been 

imposed. The Court merely noted that, given the grant of summary judgment in 

Defendants’ favor on claims one through three, no new plan of operations need be 

approved for Arizona 1 and the 1988 EA need not be supplemented. Doc. 163 at 24 n.7. 

The Court made clear that “BLM must, . . . in a format consistent with a categorical 

exclusion, explain its finding of no significant cumulative impact.” Id. This requirement 

Case 3:09-cv-08207-DGC Document 166 Filed 06/27/11 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

does not exclude consideration of Arizona 1. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 164) is denied. 

 2. The post-remand briefing schedule set forth in the summary judgment order 

(Doc. 163 at 27) remains in effect: By July 22, 2011, the parties shall file simultaneous 

memoranda, not to exceed 10 pages in length, addressing their respective positions on 

(a) the merits of claim four in light of the revised decision, and (b) any remedies the 

Court should impose if it grants summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on claim four. 

The parties shall file simultaneous responses, not to exceed 5 pages, by July 29, 2011. 

 Dated this 27th day of June, 2011. 

Case 3:09-cv-08207-DGC Document 166 Filed 06/27/11 Page 3 of 3