Picco et al v. Glenn et al

Filing 166

ORDER denying 140 Motion to Compel / Motion for Reconsideration of 117 , by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/2/2015.(tscha, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02858-RM-MJW
GLENN PICCO and
FRANCINE PICCO,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
KELLY R. GLENN, D.O.,
VALLEY VIEW HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION,
BRUCE D. LIPPMAN, II, M.D., and
GLENWOOD MEDICAL ASSOCIATES,
Defendant(s).
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and/or
Clarification of this Court’s Order Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of
Documents Pursuant to Subpoena Duces Tecum, and Motion to Compel the Continued
Deposition of Richard Zane, M.D. or, in the Alternative, to Strike Richard Zane, M.D., as
An Expert Witness (docket no. 140) is DENIED for the following reasons.
In the subject motion (docket no. 140), Plaintiffs seek an Order from this Court
clarifying this Court’s Order of August 20, 2014 (docket no. 117), to order University of
Colorado Hospital to produce any and all clinical care pathways, value streams,
algorithms, policies, and/or protocols for the University of Colorado Hospital emergency
department related to headache, syncope, and hypertension, whether in effect or
presently in development. Plaintiffs further pray that this Court order Dr. Zane to sit for
one additional hour of deposition without further compensation or, in the alternative,
strike Dr. Zane as an expert witness in this case.
The Court finds that a Motion for Reconsideration is not a proper forum to rehash
old arguments. See National Business Brokers, Ltd. v. Jim Williamson Prods. , Inc.,
115 F. Supp.2d 1250, 1256 (D. Colo. 2000). Furthermore, there are only three grounds
which warrant reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) new
evidence that was previously unavailable; and (3) the need to correct clear error or
prevent manifest injustice. Here, Plaintiffs have not argued any change in the
controlling law or any new evidence. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should
revisit its previous Order (docket no. 117) because the relief granted was not the relief

2
Plaintiffs’ meant to request. This Court fully understood the relief that Plaintiffs sought
when it entered its Order (docket no. 117). Plaintiffs previously argued they
subpoenaed Hospital documents to see what tests the Hospital required. This Court
relied on that argument when it was presented to the Court. See both docket nos. 96
and 117. Apparently, Plaintiffs have now changed their argument which does not
equate to clear error by the court, nor does it equate to manifest injustice when this
Court entered its Order (docket no. 117). This Court further finds that my Order (docket
no. 117) does not need clarification. Further, that this Court’s Order (docket no. 117)
clearly, concisely, and directly addressed the relief sought by Plaintiffs in Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel Production of Documents Pursuant to Subpoena Duces Tecum
(docket no. 96). Lastly, Plaintiffs’ request to take Dr. Zane’s continued deposition
without further compensation is without merit, and Plaintiffs’ alternative request to strike
Dr. Zane as an expert witness is also without merit.
Date: February 2, 2015