Stallings et al v. Michelin Corporation et al

Filing 123

ORDER denying 117 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration re 116 the Court's 2/25/11 Order. Having examined Defendants Statement of Fees and Expenses 119 and finding the request to be reasonable, the Court AWARDS $6,723.00 for the fees and expenses incurred in pursuing the Motion for Contempt and Sanctions 112 and $10,904.58 for the fees and expenses resulting from the re-inspection of the tires. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 5/2/11. (cem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
DONTARIE STALLINGS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHELIN AMERICAS
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:07-CV-2497-RWS

ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration [117] and for an award of fees and expenses pursuant to the
Court’s February 25, 2011 Order [116]. After considering the record, the Court
enters the following Order.
I.

Motion for Reconsideration [117]
Under the Local Rules of this Court, “[m]otions for reconsideration shall

not be filed as a matter of routine practice[,]” but rather, only when “absolutely
necessary.” LR 7.2(E), NDGa. Such absolute necessity arises where there is
“(1) newly discovered evidence; (2) an intervening development or change in

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

controlling law; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law or fact.” Bryan v.
Murphy, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1258-59 (N.D. Ga. 2003). Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate that any of these three grounds for reconsideration are present.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [117] is DENIED.
II.

Award of Fees and Expenses
The Court’s February 25, 2011 Order [116] awarded Defendants “their

reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees in connection with the preparation and
pursuit of this Motion for Contempt as well as for any expenses that are directly
attributable to a re-inspection of the tires made necessary by Mr. Cottle’s failure
to make timely production.” (Dkt. [116] at 3). On April 11, 2011, Defendants
filed a Statement of Fees and Expenses [119]. Plaintiffs object to Defendants’
Statement [119], asserting that this Court Order [116] does not allow
Defendants to recover attorney and expert fees associated with the reinspection. Plaintiffs read the Court’s Order too narrowly, as the attorney and
expert fees sought by Defendants “are directly attributable to a re-inspection of
the tires.”
Having examined Defendants’ Statement of Fees and Expenses [119] and
finding the request to be reasonable, the Court AWARDS $6,723.00 for the
fees and expenses incurred in pursuing the Motion for Contempt and Sanctions
2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

[112] and $10,904.58 for the fees and expenses resulting from the re-inspection
of the tires.
SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of May, 2011.

________________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
United States District Judge

3
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)