United States v. Medtronic Inc

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. C08-0649-JCC Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER 11 v. PHYSIO-CONTROL, INC., a corporation, 13 Defendant.

15 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C.

16 Coughenour, United States District Judge: 17 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Physio-Control, Inc.’s unopposed motion to dissolve the May 9, 2008 consent decree in its entirety (Dkt. No. 24). Because an approved consent decree represents a judgment of the court, a party seeking relief from its terms must establish one of the grounds identified in Federal Rule of Procedure 60(b). Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 378 (1992); Bellevue Manor Assocs. v. United States, 165 F.3d 22 1249, 1256 (9th Cir. 1999). Defendant has not identified the grounds for its request. Therefore, the Court ORDERS Defendant to file a supplemental brief within thirty (30) days showing why dissolution of the consent decree is warranted. The Clerk is DIRECTED to re-note Defendant’s motion (Dkt. No. 24) for March 10, 2021.1 2 DATED this 8th day of February 2021.

3 William M. McCool Clerk of Court s/Paula McNabb 5 Deputy Clerk 1 The Court also DIRECTS the Clerk to strike Defendant’s earlier-filed motion to dissolve the consent decree (Dkt.

No. 23) as it is rendered moot by the instant filing (Dkt. No. 24).