ORDER

LAWRENCE O. ANDERSON, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the motions of Defendant Companion Life Insurance Company ("Companion") for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 117, and Motion to Withdraw Admission, doc. 118, both filed on May 8, 2012. Companion requests oral argument on both motions. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(g)(2), the Court ordered briefing on the motion for reconsideration which the parties have filed. (Doc. 125, 130) Because both motions are fully and thoroughly briefed, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary. See Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County, Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999).

1. Motion for Reconsideration

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g) governs motions for reconsideration and states, inter alia, that "[t]he Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence." Id.

Although Companion's motion for reconsideration includes a thorough discussion of this case and the order at issue, Companion has not shown "manifest error" or presented "new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court's] attention earlier with reasonable diligence" that would change the Court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment. See LRCiv 7.2(g). Accordingly, the Court will deny Companion's motion for reconsideration.

2. Motion to Withdraw Admission

In a separate motion, Companion moves to withdraw its admission concerning Dr. Gietzen's status as an eligible participant under the Regional Care Services Corporation Health and Welfare Employee Benefit Plan, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(b). (Doc. 118) Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion to which Companion has replied. (Docs. 126, 131) For the reasons set forth in the Court's April 24, 2012 Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 116 at 4-6, in which the Court specifically addressed the Rule 36(b) issue, the Court will deny Companion's motion. Nothing in Companion's belated motion to withdraw changes the Court's prior analysis of that issue.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Companion Life Insurance Company's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 117, is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Companion Life Insurance Company's Motion to Withdraw Admission, doc. 118, is DENIED.