Wells v. General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. et al

Filing 147

ORDER DENYING 145 Motion for Reconsideration re 143 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 10/22/12. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
TAMMY WELLS,
Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL DYNAMICS
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-18 (MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Docs. 145 and 146) of the Court’s Order denying her Motion to Amend her Complaint
(Doc. 143).1 The Court previously denied the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend for several
reasons, including (1) the amendment deadline was January 3, 2012, (2) several
previous extensions have been granted for the Plaintiff because of her medical
conditions and her mother’s medical problems, (3) the underlying facts supporting her
underlying claim are not newly discovered facts, and (4) because granting the motion
would unduly prejudice the Defendants. This case has been pending since May 11,
2010 (Doc. 1), discovery is closed, except with regard to Dr. Keith Pressey’s deposition
(Doc. 142), and the dispositive motions deadline is November 30, 2012 (Doc. 142).

1

The Plaintiff moved twice for Reconsideration on October 20, 2012. To her second Motion (Doc. 146)
she attaches a Letter (Doc. 146-1) explaining why her Motion for Reconsideration was filed outside the
permitted time period for filing Motions for Reconsideration. Though the Motions are untimely, and could
be denied on that basis alone, the Court will consider the Motions as properly filed because there is no
basis for granting the Motions for Reconsideration, even if timely filed.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.6, “Motions for Reconsideration shall not be filed as a
matter of routine practice.” M.D. Ga., L.R. 7.6. Further, “[i]n the interests of finality and
conservation of scarce resources, reconsideration of an order is an extraordinary
remedy which is to be employed sparingly.” DePass v. Unum, 2012 WL 135394, * 1
(S.D. Fla.) (citing United States v. Bailey, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1267 (M.D. Fla. 2003)).
“Reconsideration is appropriate only if the movant demonstrates (1) that there has been
an intervening change in the law, (2) that new evidence has been discovered which was
not previously available to the parties in the exercise of due diligence, or (3) that the
court made a clear error of law.” Bingham v. Nelson, 2010 WL 339806, at *1 (M.D. Ga.
2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “In order to demonstrate clear
error, the party moving for reconsideration must do more than simply restate his prior
arguments, and any arguments which the party inadvertently failed to raise earlier are
deemed waived.” McCoy v. Macon Water Authority, 966 F.Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D.
Ga. 1997).
Here, the Plaintiff has not met her burden. She has alleged no intervening
change in the law, has presented no new evidence not previously available to the
parties, and the Court is not persuaded its previous ruling was clearly erroneous.
Though the Court understands that the Plaintiff has been proceeding pro se since
December 5, 2011, and that the Plaintiff has endured several medical procedures
throughout litigation, these reasons cannot form the basis for granting her Motion for
Reconsideration. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
(Docs. 145 and 146).

‐2- 

SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of October 2012.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

‐3-