Robinson v. COLQUITT EMC et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying 30 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by U.S. District Judge HUGH LAWSON on 3/24/2014. (nbp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION JACKIE ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 7:13-CV-92 (HL) COLQUITT EMC, et al., Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 30) of this Court’s refusal to order Defendant Colquitt EMC to conduct an expensive, timeconsuming electronic search for certain words on its employees’ cell phones and computers. The Court denied Plaintiff’s request after a telephone conference on these matters on March 3, 2014. The motion for reconsideration is denied. Plaintiff moves the Court for reconsideration of its decision pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). “The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” In re Kellog, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999). “A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)) (internal punctuation omitted). Plaintiff does not present any new evidence or point the Court to any binding legal authority that would cause it to reconsider its decision. His motion is denied. SO ORDERED, this the 24th day of March, 2014. s/ Hugh Lawson_______________ HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE scr 2

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?