G. MURRAY SNOW, Chief District Judge.
Defendants Greenfield Products, LLC and Mi-Jack Products, Inc. ("Defendants") move for reconsideration of this Court's October 9, 2019 Order (Doc. 109) granting Plaintiff's motion for sanctions. (Doc. 110.)
Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Application for Attorneys' Fees and Costs in compliance with the Court's October 9, 2019 Order. (Doc. 114.) The application was requested to provide a basis for Plaintiff's sanction award. For reasons discussed below, Defendants' counsel are sanctioned in the amount of $9,029.45.
A motion for reconsideration may be granted if the moving party can show: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud or other misconduct; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) motions should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Such motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court "`to rethink what the court had already thought through-rightly or wrongly.'" Id. (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). A mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F.Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988).
In its Order, the Court found that existing caselaw supports Plaintiff's assertion that Defendants' failure to have a representative with full settlement authority present at the court ordered mediation, coupled with Defendants refusal to listen to Plaintiff's presentation, constituted grounds for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(B). Because the cases relied on by the Court
The Court held oral argument on this matter on December 10, 2019. Having heard the parties' arguments, the Court finds no basis to reconsider its order. The Court ordered private mediation at the mediator's request. The mediator required that the parties have representatives actually present with sufficient authority to settle the case. Defendants did not comply with this request. The representative in attendance only had the authority to offer the self-insured retention to settle the case. Further the Defendants declined to hear the Plaintiff's position personally after being requested by the mediator to do so.
In its October 9, 2019 Order, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for sanctions in the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred to prepare for and participate in the court ordered mediation. Plaintiff's corresponding fee application requests an award of $12,354.45. Defendants "do not take issue with the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged by Plaintiff's counsel."
Air travel time is generally not compensable pursuant to LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)(D).