Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 96 Filed 05/30/25 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF IDAHO

REBECCA SCOFIELD, Case No.: 3:22-cv-00521-REP

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER RE:
vs.
DEFENDANT’S RULE 60(b)(2)
ASHLEY GUILLARD, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF PARTIAL SUMMARY
Defendant. JUDGMENT

(Dkt. 92)

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Rule 60(b)(2) Motion for Reconsideration of

Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 92). Because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional

process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the Motion will be decided on the

record and without oral argument. As discussed more fully below, the Motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of the tragic murder of four University of Idaho students in

November 2022. Plaintiff Rebecca Scofield is a professor at the University of Idaho. She

alleges that, despite never meeting any of these students or being involved with their murders in

any way, Defendant Ashley Guillard posted numerous TikTok (and later YouTube) videos

falsely claiming that Plaintiff (i) had an extramarital, same-sex, romantic affair with one of the

victims; and then (ii) ordered the four murders to prevent the affair from coming to light.

Plaintiff sent cease-and-desist letters to Defendant in the following days and weeks. When

Defendant did not stop, Plaintiff initiated this action. Plaintiff asserts two defamation claims

against Defendant: one is premised upon the false statements regarding Plaintiff’s involvement

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

 Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 96 Filed 05/30/25 Page 2 of 7

with the murders themselves, the other is premised upon the false statements regarding Plaintiff’s

romantic relationship with one of the murdered students.

On June 6, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment (the “MDO”). See 6/6/24 MDO at 8-20 (Dkt. 74). On the issue of liability for

Plaintiff’s two defamation claims against Defendant, the Court concluded that Plaintiff

sufficiently demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact relating to the falsity

of Defendant’s statements about her. Id. at 17-18 (after citing evidence, stating: “This is

powerful evidence at the summary judgment stage. It not only substantiates Plaintiff’s argument

that Defendant’s statements about her are false, it also highlights the complete lack of any

corroborating support for Defendant’s statements.”). Under Rule 56, this shifted the burden to

Defendant to dispute that claim by setting forth facts showing that there is a genuine issue for

trial relating to whether her statements about Plaintiff are true. In relying only on her spiritual

investigation into the murders, however, the Court concluded that Defendant did not satisfy her

burden. Id. at 18-20 (“As a result, Defendant’s psychic intuition, without more, cannot establish

a genuine dispute of material fact to oppose Plaintiff’s summary judgment efforts.”). The Court

therefore concluded that “the totality of the evidence reveals that there is no genuine dispute as to

any material fact that Defendant defamed Plaintiff.” Id. at 20.

Also on June 6, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend

Complaint to Add Punitive Damages. Id. at 20-22. In permitting a claim for punitive damages,

the Court concluded that Plaintiff “established a reasonable likelihood of proving, by clear and

convincing evidence, that Defendant’s conduct in accusing Plaintiff of an affair with a student

before ordering that student’s and three other students’ murders was oppressive, fraudulent,

malicious, and/or outrageous.” Id. at 21. The extent of Plaintiff’s damages, if any, remains an

issue for trial.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

 Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 96 Filed 05/30/25 Page 3 of 7

Defendant then moved for “reconsideration, alteration, or amendment” of the Court’s

June 6, 2024 MDO pursuant to Rule 59(e). See Mot. to Alter or Am. J. (Dkt. 77). Defendant

specifically argued that the MDO (i) “was based upon a manifest error of law or fact”; (ii)

“should be amended to prevent manifest injustice and an impediment to justice due to the lack of

judicial impartiality”; and (iii) “erroneously allows for excessive damages.” Id. at 2. These

reasons, according to Defendant, warranted the wholesale dismissal of the case under Rule

12(h)(3). Id. at 1-2. The Court disagreed and denied Defendant’s Motion. Id. at 6-16 (in

response to Defendant’s particular arguments, concluding that the MDO did not violate the First

Amendment; the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, properly resolved Plaintiff’s defamation

claims, and has not violated Defendant’s right to a fair tribunal; Idaho law permits a claim for

punitive damages; and Defendant’s defamatory statements are not privileged).

Now, via the pending Motion, Defendant again moves to have the Court reconsider its

June 6, 2024 MDO – this time, pursuant to Rule 60(b). See Mot. for Recon. (Dkt. 92).

Defendant claims that newly discovered evidence (in the form of filings in a related state court

criminal proceeding) “provides factual support that substantiates the Tik-Tok videos [Defendant]

posted regarding the murder of the four University of Idaho students . . . .” Id. at 1. Defendant

maintains that she cannot be found liable for defamation because this newly discovered evidence

proves that she was telling the truth in these Tik-Tok videos, or otherwise highlights outstanding

issues of material fact that precludes summary judgment. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff again opposes

Defendant’s latest Motion in its entirety. See generally Opp. to Mot. for Recon. (Dkt. 93).

These arguments are considered below.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding

for the following reasons: (i) “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;” (ii) “newly

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

 Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 96 Filed 05/30/25 Page 4 of 7

discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered previously;”

(iii) “fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;” (iv) “the judgment is void;”

(v) “the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged;” or (vi) “any other reason that

justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6). “Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy and is

granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Karraker v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 411 F.3d 831, 837

(7th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The moving party “bears the burden of proving the existence

of a justification for Rule 60(b) relief.” Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1988).

Here, Defendant relies on Rule 60(b)(2) when she claims that newly discovered evidence

exists that “corroborates the truth and accuracy” of her statements about Plaintiff’s involvement

in the November 2022 murders. Mem. ISO mot. for Recon. at 6 (Dkt. 92-1). “Relief from [an

order] on the basis of newly discovered evidence is warranted if (i) the moving party can show

the evidence relied on in fact constitutes newly discovered evidence within the meaning of Rule

60(b); (ii) the moving party exercised due diligence to discover this evidence; and (iii) the newly

discovered evidence must be of such magnitude that production of it earlier would have been

likely to change the disposition of the case.” Trendsettah USA, Inc. v. Swisher Int’l, Inc., 31

F.4th 1124, 1136 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 331 F.3d

1082, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003)).

The disposition of a Rule 60(b) motion is committed to “the sound discretion of the

district court.” Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that newly discovered evidence – revealed in a parallel criminal

proceeding in state court – tracks statements made in her earlier Tik Tok videos about various

circumstances surrounding the murders. For example, Defendant claims that newly discovered

evidence confirms her statements about (i) how the surviving roommates were afraid the night of

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

 Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 96 Filed 05/30/25 Page 5 of 7

the murders; (ii) a dog being in the house at the time of the murders; (iii) a break-up involving

one of the victims and her boyfriend; (iv) the four victims being located in two different rooms;

and (v) the imminence of an arrest. Mem. ISO Mot. for Recon. at 7-11 (Dkt. 92-1). From this,

Defendant contends that the perceived synergy between her psychic intuition and the newly

discovered evidence not only validates her separate statements about Plaintiff’s role in the

murders and relationship with one of the victims, but also highlights how her theories about the

murders have never been proven false, and therefore her absolute defense of truth against

Plaintiff’s defamation claims remains plausible. Id. at 7-14.

Plaintiff counters that Defendant’s arguments are procedurally improper because the June

6, 2024 MDO is not a final judgment. Opp. to Mot. for Recon. at 2, n.1 (Dkt. 93). Plaintiff

additionally argues that the evidence Defendant’s cites is not admissible and, regardless, does not

affect the Court’s analysis. Id. at 3-6. Plaintiff lastly questions Defendant’s diligence, arguing

that she was already aware of most of the evidence she now relies upon in her Motion (i.e., the

evidence is not new at all), but did nothing to formally obtain it during discovery or otherwise

make any effort to incorporate it into her summary judgment briefing. Id. at 6-8.1 The Court

agrees with Plaintiff.

Even assuming that Defendant’s reconsideration efforts are procedurally proper, and that

the referenced evidence is both newly discovered and admissible, Defendant’s Motion suffers

from a fatal flaw: the evidence does not change the disposition of the case. Absolutely nothing

about this evidence suggests that Defendants’ statements about Plaintiff are true. That certain of

Defendant’s psychic insights may have randomly coincided with banal aspects of notorious and

1
Plaintiff’s position in this respect may explain Defendant’s recent Notice to the Court
of Requested Documents (Dkt. 95). There, Defendant notified the Court of her public records
request following the state court’s denial of her Motion for Access to Non-Disclosed Records in
the state criminal action. Id.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

 Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 96 Filed 05/30/25 Page 6 of 7

well-publicized murders is hardly surprising. But this happenstance alone does not legitimize

Defendant’s perceived clairvoyance, nor can it bridge the gap between Defendant’s intuition and

the truth – a crucial aspect of Plaintiff’s defamation claims against Defendant. Ultimately, the

cited evidence is wholly unrelated to Plaintiff;2 if anything, it underscores that there continues to

be no evidence that Plaintiff had an affair with a student or orchestrated the murders to keep that

affair secret.

Defendant’s insistence about how her theories surrounding the murders have never been

proven false is likewise unavailing. She claims that evidence pertaining to three sets of DNA

under M.M.’s fingernails, the victims’ defensive wounds, and blood at the crime scene from two

unidentified males, is not inconsistent with her underlying theory that Plaintiff orchestrated the

murders and framed Brian Kohberger (the defendant in the state criminal action) by planting a

knife sheath at the crime scene. Mem. ISO of Mot. for Recon. at 11-13 (Dkt. 92-1). But this

misses the point. As the Court already stated, this case is not about whether Mr. Kohberger

committed the murders. See 2/4/25 MDO at 8 (Dkt. 89) (“Though the Court’s consideration of

those issues may have touched upon a matter of criminal concern in a parallel criminal

proceeding in state court, the Court never endeavored to apply the elements of murder and

adjudge Plaintiff “innocent” and Mr. Kohberger “guilty.”). Rather, this case is about whether

Defendant defamed Plaintiff by repeatedly accusing Plaintiff of an affair with a student before

2
Defendant’s attempt to associate Plaintiff with evidence about a white Hyundai Elantra
being involved in the murders also falls short. See Mem. ISO Mot. for Recon. at 9 (Dkt. 92-1)
(“[Defendant] stated on the video that [Plaintiff] had access to a white Hyundai Elantra the night
of the murders; and that she drove to the scene of the homicides to ensure the execution of the
murders. On January 12, 2024, [Plaintiff] admitted to having access to a white Hyundai Elantra
during the night of the quadruple murder of the four students. The State’s Exhibit A alleges
evidence that a white Elantra was seen near the area of the homicides several times.”).
Defendant’s reliance upon a Request for Admission from Plaintiff to Defendant to prove this
point is not only misplaced, but fails to make the connection Defendant seeks. Based upon the
record before the Court, Plaintiff never admitted she had access to a white Hyundai Elantra.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6

 Case 3:22-cv-00521-REP Document 96 Filed 05/30/25 Page 7 of 7

ordering that student’s and three other students’ murders. On that lynchpin point, the Court

concluded that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that Defendant did so,

regardless of whether Mr. Kohberger – or anyone else – committed the murders. The evidence

that Defendant cites in support of her Motion does not change this conclusion because there

continues to be no corroborating support for Defendant’s statements about Plaintiff.

For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion is denied.

IV. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Rule 60(b)(2)

Motion for Reconsideration of Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 92) is DENIED.

The parties shall meet and confer to discuss trial dates. After doing so, on or before June

16, 2025, the parties shall file a joint status report with the parties’ proposals for trial dates and

whether the parties have a mutual interest in participating in a judicial settlement conference.

DATED: May 30, 2025

________________________
Honorable Raymond E. Patricco
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7