Echon et al v. Sackett et al
MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 196 Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration of Court's Ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 3. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/9/18. (pabsec)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03420-PAB-NYW
ESMERALDO VILLANUEVA ECHON, JR.,
MARIBEL ECHON, and
WILLIAM SACKETT and
Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification and
Reconsideration of Court’s Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 3 [Docket No. 196].
During the Trial Preparation Conference on January 26, 2018, the Court ruled that
certain of defendants’ witnesses would be permitted to testify at trial regarding
defendants’ character for truthfulness. See Docket No. 181. Plaintiffs now move for
clarification of that ruling as to one of defendants’ witnesses, Timothy O’Reilly, who was
not disclosed as a witness by defendants until the Final Pretrial Order. See Docket No.
196 at 2. Plaintiffs also ask that the Court reconsider its ruling as to the remaining
witnesses. See id. at 3-4. Plaintiffs argue that, because they do not intend to introduce
opinion or reputation evidence that defendants have untruthful characters, defendants’
proffered witness testimony is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 608(a). Id.
The Court agrees with plaintiffs that defendants’ witness Timothy O’Reilly should
be precluded from testifying at trial. Given that defendants did not disclose Mr. O’Reilly
as a witness until the Final Pretrial Order [Docket No. 120], the Court f inds that plaintiffs
would suffer prejudice if he were allowed to testify at trial. Accordingly, Mr. O’Reilly will
be precluded from testifying as to any matter, including defendants’ character for
truthfulness. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) (providing that “[i]f a party fails to provide
information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not
allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence . . . at a trial, unless the
failure was substantially justified or is harmless”).
The Court declines to reconsider its ruling as to the remaining witnesses. The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for
reconsideration. See Hatfield v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs for Converse Cty., 52 F.3d 858,
861 (10th Cir. 1995). Instead, motions for reconsideration fall within a court’s plenary
power to revisit and amend interlocutory orders as justice requires. See Paramount
Pictures Corp. v. Thompson Theatres, Inc., 621 F.2d 1088, 1090 (10th Cir. 1980) (citing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). In determining whether to grant a motion for reconsideration,
courts consider whether new evidence or legal authority has emerged or whether the
prior ruling was clearly in error. Motions to reconsider are generally an inappropriate
vehicle to advance “new arguments, or supporting facts which were available at the
time of the original motion.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012
(10th Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs do not apply these standards for reconsideration in their
motion. Nor do they explain why the new legal authorities cited in their motion could not
have been cited in their original motion in limine or at the Trial Preparation Conference.
It is therefore
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration of Court’s
Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 3 [Docket No. 196] is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
DATED February 9, 2018.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?