US Bank National Association et al v. Gunn

Filing 118

MEMORANDUM re 80 MOTION to Quash Subpoenas Issued by Defendant After the Discovery Cut Off, 89 MOTION for Mandatory Judicial Notice and Request for an Evidentiary Hearing, and 111 SECOND MOTION for Reconsideration re 103 Order denying Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 9/10/2012. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as
Trustee for the Holders of the EQCC Home
Equity Loan Asset Backed Certificates,
Series 1998-3 and SELECT PORTFOLIO
SERVICING, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
Civ. No. 11-1155-RGA

v.

LA MAR GUNN,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM
Having considered three pending motions (D.I. 80, 89, 111);
Plaintiffs move to quash subpoenas (D. I. 80) issued by Defendant on the
grounds that they are untimely, violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, are overly broad, and seek
information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Defendant opposes the motion and notes that counsel for
Plaintiffs failed to include a good faith certification that the parties attempted to resolve
the issue as is required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2). Because Defendant proceeds pro
se, this Court's Local Rules do not require an averment of counsel for the moving party
that a reasonable effort has been made to reach agreement with the opposing party on
the matters set forth in the motion. See D.Del. LR 7.1.1. During hearing on September
10, 2012, Defendant indicated that, for the most part, he had received the discovery
sought pursuant to subpoena. The Court further stated that it would not enforce the
subpoenas to the extent the Defendant had not gotten everything he asked for.

Therefore, the Court will deny the Motion as moot.
Defendant filed a Motion for Mandatory Judicial Notice and Request for an
Evidentiary Hearing (D. I. 89) to address the issue of "fraudulent, vexatious, and unclean
hands actions on behalf of the plaintiff." The motion is without support and will be
denied.
On June 4, 2012, the Court denied Defendant LaMar Gunn's Motion for an
Extension of Time to file a First Amended Answer (D.I. 79). (See 84.) Defendant filed
a Notice of Appeal of the Order (D.I. 101) and an Application to Proceed without
Prepaying Fees or Costs on Appeal (D. I. 102). The Court denied the Application on
July 17, 2012. (See D. I. 103.) Defendant sought reconsideration of the Order denying
his Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs on Appeal (D. I. 105), which
was denied by the Court on August 1, 2012. (See D.l. 108.) Defendant recently filed a
Second Motion to Reconsider (D. I. 111). For the reasons discussed below, the Court
will deny the Motion.
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rei. Lou-Ann,
Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). "A proper Rule 59(e) motion ...
must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice." Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010).
Defendant seeks reconsideration on the grounds that the Court has misstated
his income, that he was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ne York, and that his income continues to
decline. (D. I. 111) Defendant's arguments are similar to those raised in his previous

2

!

r
i

motion for reconsideration, denied by this Court.

f
•

?

Defendant has failed to demonstrate any of the necessary grounds to warrant
reconsideration of the Court's July 17, 2012 Order. Therefore, the Court will deny the
Second Motion for Reconsideration.
An appropriate Order will issue.

{0,

September
2012
Wilmington, Delaware

I

I