Gary Levy v. Google LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 GARY LEVY, CASE NO. C23-1678JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant.

15 Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Gary Levy’s filing titled “Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion Defect Record Forces Full Stop Input, Output Errata Require Rev, No Adversary Renders Total Failure,” which the court construes as a motion for reconsideration of the court’s November 18, 2025 Order granting Mr. Levy’s request to accept his untimely response to Defendant Google LLC’s (“Google”) motion for summary judgment. (Mot.

20 (Dkt. # 76); 11/18/25 Order (Dkt. # 69); see also MSJ (Dkt. # 32).) Google opposes Mr. Levy’s motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 78).) Mr. Levy petitions the court for relief previously addressed in prior court orders, including to “correct” the docket, redact personal health information (“PHI”), and further extend Mr. Levy’s deadline to respond to Google’s motion for summary judgment. (Mot. at 6; see, e.g., 10/28/25 Order (Dkt. # 58) at 3-5 (addressing Mr. Levy’s arguments pertaining to some of the relief he currently seeks).)

4 Being fully advised, the court DENIES Mr. Levy’s motion for reconsideration.

5 Here, Mr. Levy untimely filed his response to Google’s motion for summary judgment on November 17, 2025. (MSJ Resp. (Dkt. # 68).) The court accepted the untimely filing and ordered Mr. Levy to file the exhibits he cited in his response by November 19, 2025. (See 11/18/25 Order). On November 19, 2025, Mr. Levy filed a single exhibit labeled “Exhibit 63-1-‘Clawback’”. (See Dkt. # 70.) Between November 20, 2025, and December 1, 2025, Mr. Levy filed four additional submissions with the court. (See Dkt. ## 71, 72, 74, 77 (showing that Mr. Levy filed a copy of an email chain with opposing counsel and three submissions further describing and documenting his pursuit of medical care).)

14 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored[,]” and the court “will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h); see also Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted) (setting forth that amending a court’s prior order is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly”). The court has reviewed Mr. Levy’s motion and concludes that he has not presented new circumstances, identified a court error, or shown an intervening change in law that would justify reconsideration of the court’s November 18, 2025 Order. Rather, Mr. Levy again describes his ongoing health issues, argues that the record provided by Google contains errors, and asserts that the court’s prior orders do not fully “comprehend” the facts that Mr. Levy provided. (Mot. at 2.) Therefore, the court denies Mr. Levy’s motion for reconsideration. To the extent Mr. Levy intends for the exhibit he filed on November 19, 2025 to be responsive to the court’s November 18, 2025 Order and/or Google’s motion for summary judgment, the court considers this exhibit to be timely. To the extent Mr. Levy intends for the documents he filed between November 20, 2025, and December 1, 2025, to be responsive to the court’s November 18, 2025 Order and/or Google’s motion for summary judgment, the court rejects these submissions as untimely.

11 In conclusion, for the reason described herein, the court DENIES Mr. Levy’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 76) and rejects any untimely filed submissions in opposition to Google’s motion. Furthermore, the court puts the parties on notice that it will not consider any additional late-filed submissions in support of or in opposition to Google’s motion for summary judgment and will not grant any additional extensions of deadlines pertaining to the pending motion for summary judgment.

17 Dated this 3 rd day of December, 2025.

A JAMES L. ROBART 19 United States District Judge