OF JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANTS DALE WILLIAMS AND PATRICK JURDON

(ECF No. 129)

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.

On October 10, 2019, a proposed order for judgment was submitted by Dale Williams and Patrick Jurdon, who were named as defendants in this case. See ECF No. 77. As summary judgment has already been granted in favor of Defendants Jurdon and Williams, those defendants have been terminated. ECF No. 120. Accordingly, the recently filed proposed order appears to be a request for entry of separate judgment as to those defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). However, concerns about judicial economy counsel that Rule 54(b) should be used sparingly. See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 10 ((1980) ("Plainly, sound judicial administration does not require that Rule 54(b) requests be granted routinely."); Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981) (directing that Rule 54(b) be "reserved for the unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the number of proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an early and separate judgment as to some claims or parties"). Because an expedited appeal is an exception rather than the rule, the court should not enter judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) absent a showing of hardship, injustice, or "unusual and compelling circumstances." Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., 655 F.2d at 966. Accordingly, the request for entry of separate judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its renewal accompanied by an appropriate showing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.