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

Filing 160

ORDER DENYING 159 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 1/22/2013. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE 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
Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 159). The
Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its Order granting the Defendants’ Motion for an
Extension of Time to file their Statements of Facts. (Doc. 155). For the following
reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.6, “Motions for Reconsideration shall not be filed as a
matter of routine practice.” M.D. Ga., L.R. 7.6.1 “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 [her] prior arguments, and any

1
This is the Plaintiff’s third Motion for Reconsideration filed in less than three months. See also
(Docs. 145 and 150).

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).
Further, “[t]he motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to improve
upon [her] arguments or try out new arguments; nor is it properly a forum for a party to
vent [her] dissatisfaction with the Court's reasoning. The Court assumes that in nearly
every case at least one party will deem a decision to be based on flawed reasoning.”
Id. at 1223.
Here, the Plaintiff has not met her burden. She has alleged no intervening
change in the law, has presented no new relevant evidence not previously available to
the parties, and the Court is not persuaded its previous ruling was clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of January, 2013.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT