Berlant v. U.S. Election Assistance Comm’n, No. 23-00257, 2025 WL 842308 (D. Or. Mar. 18, 2025) (Nelson, J.)

Berlant v. U.S. Election Assistance Comm’n, No. 23-00257, 2025 WL 842308 (D. Or. Mar. 18, 2025) (Nelson, J.)

Re: Requests for records concerning accreditation of voting system test laboratories

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration

• Litigation Considerations:  The court finds that plaintiff’s “motion was untimely,” but “even if the Court had jurisdiction, plaintiff identifies no newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in the law to support her request for reconsideration.”  “To the contrary, plaintiff largely rehashes the same arguments she made in previous briefing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment and her motions to compel.”  “For example, plaintiff again argues that defendant’s searches, Vaughn index, and declaration were not adequate; that defendant’s redactions were not justified under Exemption 6; and that defendant did not produce specific records that plaintiff believes to exist.”  “Plaintiff also raises for the first time other arguments that are not related to the eight FOIA requests at issue.”  “However, plaintiff may not use the motion to relitigate old matters, and the Court declines to consider arguments raised for the first time on a motion for reconsideration.”  “Accordingly, reconsideration is not justified . . . .”