Hernandez et al v. Crown Equipment Corporation

Filing 111

ORDER denying 101 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 102 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 5/11/2015. (aks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION

JOSE HERNANDEZ and PRISCILLA
HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 7:13-CV-91 (HL)
v.
CROWN EQUIPMENT CORP.,
Defendant.

ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s
Denial of Portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Defendant’s Experts Ronald
Grisez, Dan Dunlap, Charles Watkins, and Thomas McNish (Doc. 101) and
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to
Exclude the Expert Testimony of Mark Elrod (Doc. 102). The motions are denied.
Motions for reconsideration are not to be filed as a matter of “routine
practice.” M.D. Ga. Local Rule 7.6. “[A] motion for reconsideration does not
provide an opportunity to simply reargue the issue the Court has once
determined.” Am. Ass’n of People with Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp. 2d
1337, 1340 (M.D. Fla. 2003). Thus, a motion for reconsideration is only
appropriate if the movant can show that “(1) there has been an intervening
change in the law, (2) new evidence has been discovered that was not previously

available to the parties at the time the original order was entered, or (3)
reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice.” Wallace v. Ga. Dep’t of Transp., Civil Action No. 7:04-cv-78 (HL), 2006
WL 1582409, at *2 (M.D. Ga. June 6, 2006) (citing McCoy v. Macon Water Auth.,
966 F. Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D. Ga. 1997)).
There is no basis for granting either motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs’
motion for reconsideration with regard to the order excluding their expert Mark
Elrod does not fit into any of the three categories listed in Wallace. Plaintiffs
maintain, incorrectly, that the Court misunderstood the factual record in excluding
the expert. However, even if this were the case, a mistake of fact is not grounds
for a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs justify the other motion for
reconsideration on the grounds that they have now deposed Dr. Michael Scott,
whose research was used by Defendant’s experts, and that the evidence given
by Dr. Scott supports excluding Defendant’s experts. The Court disagrees. There
is nothing in the deposition that causes the Court to reconsider its earlier order.

SO ORDERED, this the 11th day of May, 2015.

s/ Hugh Lawson________________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE

scr

2