Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00681/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00681-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

---

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

Terry Jorgensen, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Channel 5 KPHO TV; Meredith

Corporation,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-04-0681-PHX-RGS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Terry Jorgensen's Motion to Reconsider the

Court's Order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiff's

motion for summary judgment (Doc. #29). After considering the arguments raised by

Plaintiff in his briefing, the Court now issues the following ruling.

On March 30, 2005, the Court entered an Order granting Defendant's motion for

summary judgment and denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the

Court, having reviewed the text of Meredith's broadcasts and the contents of the search

warrant and affidavit in support thereof, found that all of Meredith's statements concerning

Plaintiff were immunized by the fair reporting privilege, because they constituted fair and

accurate reports summarizing the information contained in the public record. The Court

further found that Plaintiff had not come forward with any evidence that the search warrant

materials were sealed at the time of the newscast. On April 8, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion

to Reconsider.

Case 2:04-cv-00681-RGS Document 32 Filed 04/11/06 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

- 2 -

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only where: (1) the District Court is

presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) the District Court committed clear error in its

decision; (3) the District Court’s decision was manifestly unjust, or (4) there is an intervening

change in controlling law. See School District No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir.

1993). Procedurally, motions to reconsider are generally treated as motions to alter or amend

the judgment or a motion for relief from a judgment or order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60.

Thus, relief may also be available on any of the grounds listed in Rule 60 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask the Court

"to rethink what the court has already thought through." Defenders of Wildlife v. Ballard,

73 F.Supp.2d 1094, 1115 (D. Ariz. 1999). 

In his Motion, Plaintiff challenges the grounds on which the Court granted summary

judgment to Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff submits that the Meredith broadcast was not

immunized by the fair reporting privilege.

The Court finds that throughout Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider, Plaintiff simply asks

the Court to revisit the issues raised in relation to his motion for summary judgment, and to

reexamine case law which was previously cited in this matter. Plaintiff fails to present newly

discovered evidence or show that there has been an intervening change in the controlling law.

Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (Doc. #29) is

DENIED.

DATED this 11th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00681-RGS Document 32 Filed 04/11/06 Page 2 of 2