United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
OPINION & ORDER
V. ACOSTA United States Magistrate Judge
plaintiff Sage Redwind (“Redwind”) seeks
reconsideration of the court's order granting in part the
Bill of Costs filed by defendant Western Union, LLC
(“Western Union”). (ECF No. 203.) For the reasons
that follow, the court denies Redwind's motion but grants
a stay on the award of costs until resolution of
Redwind's appeal in this case.
initiated this lawsuit against Western Union, alleging
employment discrimination, harassment, discriminatory pay
practices, retaliation, and defamation. (ECF Nos. 1, 3, 12.)
The court granted Western Union's motion for summary
judgment on all of Redwind's claims, following extensive
discovery. (ECF No. 188.) Redwind currently is appealing the
court's grant of summary judgment to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 194.)
Union, as a prevailing party, sought $13, 425.37 in costs,
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”)
54. (ECF No. 190.) Redwind opposed the cost award, arguing
Western Union is not a prevailing party because the court
granted summary judgment in error. (ECF No. 195 at 2.)
Redwind also objected to specific costs as non-recoverable.
(Id. at 3-11.) Redwind did not make any policy-based
arguments against awarding costs. (See Id. at 2.)
The court awarded Western Union $10, 619.87 in costs. (ECF
Motion for Reconsideration.
may reconsider prior orders under Rules 59(e) or 60(b).
Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262
(9th Cir. 1993). “[A] motion for reconsideration should
accomplish two goals: (1) it should demonstrate reasons why
the court should reconsider its prior decision and (2) set
forth law or facts of a strongly convincing nature to induce
the court to reverse its prior decision.” Holdner
v. Coba, No. 3:15-cv-2039-AC, 2016 WL 4210776, at *1 (D.
Or. Aug. 8, 2016) (quoting Romtec, et al. v. Oldcastle
Precast, Inc., 08-06297-HO, 2011 WL 690633, at *8 (D.
Or. Feb. 16, 2011)). Rule 60(b) allows reconsideration for
the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Rule 59(e), reconsideration is available “when (1) the
court committed manifest errors of law or fact, (2) the court
is presented with newly discovered or previously unavailable
evidence, (3) the decision was manifestly unjust, or (4)
there is an intervening change in the controlling law.”
Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 F.3d 482, 491-92 (9th Cir.
2016) (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d
1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011)). A party may not use a motion for
reconsideration to raise new arguments or offer new evidence
in a motion for reconsideration, if the arguments or ...