Stallings et al v. Michelin Corporation et al

Filing 137

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 135 Motion to Reconsider 2/15/12 Spoliation Sanction Order against Plaintiffs and Troy Cottles. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 4/23/12. (cem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
DONTARIE M. STALLINGS, as
the Administrator of the Estate of
Terrell Stallings, Deceased, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA,
INC., et al.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

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

Defendants.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider
February 15, 2012 Spoliation Sanction Order against Plaintiffs and Troy Cottles
(“Motion for Reconsideration”) [135]. After reviewing the record, the Court
hereby DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration [135] for the reasons that
follow.
Background
This is a product liability case concerning an allegedly defective and
unreasonably dangerous tire. On May 23, 2011, Defendant moved for sanctions
against Plaintiffs based on spoliation of evidence, namely, the metal wheel on

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

which the allegedly defective tire had been mounted and 23 of 24 test tires that
Plaintiffs’ tire expert, Mr. Troy Cottles, had used in a 2006 “compression
grooving” study. (Def. Michelin North America, Inc.’s Mot. for Sanctions
Based on Spoliation of Evidence (“Def.’s Mot. for Sanctions”), Dkt. [126] at 1,
8.) By Order dated February 15, 2012, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion
for Sanctions, finding Plaintiffs liable for spoliation both as to the wheel and the
test tires. (Dkt. [134].) Plaintiffs now seek reconsideration of that Order, to the
extent the Court granted Defendant’s request for sanctions based on the
spoliation of the test tires.
Prior to their spoliation, the test tires had been the subject of two Court
Orders. The first was an Order of production, dated March 12, 2010: the Court
ordered Plaintiffs to produce the 23 test tires and all other materials and data
related to Mr. Cottles’s study, including shearography and x-rays. (Order, Dkt.
[107] at 17-18.) In accordance with this Order, Plaintiffs made the test tires
available for Defendant’s inspection, which inspection took place in May of
2010. (Pl.’s Mot. for Reconsideration, Dkt. [135] at 2-3.) Plaintiffs, however,
failed to produce the shearography and x-rays as required; therefore, on June 7,
2010, Defendant filed a motion for contempt. (Dkt. [112].) In that motion,
2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Defendant asked the Court to order Plaintiffs to produce the shearography and
x-rays and to reproduce the test tires for reinspection by Defendant. (Id. at 3.)
Defendant explained that reinspection of the test tires would be necessary to
compare the unproduced shearography and x-rays with visible findings on the
tires. (Id. at 3.) On February 25, 2011, the Court granted Defendant’s motion,
finding Mr. Cottles and Plaintiffs in willful contempt and ordering Plaintiffs,
among other things, to reproduce the test tires for Defendant’s reinspection.
(Order, Dkt. [116] at 3.)
When Defendant’s expert reinspected the test tires, on March 31, 2011,
he found that each tire had been sawed (“sectioned”) into six non-uniform
pieces. (Order, Dkt. [134] at 5.) Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions followed.
As stated above, by Order dated February 15, 2012, the Court found the
sectioning of the test tires to constitute intentional and bad faith spoliation of
evidence for which sanctions were warranted. (Id. at 9-10.) Plaintiffs now seek
reconsideration of that finding. While they do not dispute that the test tires
were spoliated, Plaintiffs contend that sanctions were not warranted because the
spoliation was not in bad faith and is not prejudicial to Defendant. (See
generally Pl.’s Mot. for Reconsideration, Dkt. [135].)
3

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Discussion
I.

Motion for Reconsideration Legal Standard
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
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). A motion for
reconsideration may not be used “to present the court with arguments already
heard and dismissed or to repackage familiar arguments to test whether the
court will change its mind.” Id. at 1259. Nor may it be used “to offer new legal
theories or evidence that could have been presented in conjunction with the
previously filed motion or response, unless a reason is given for failing to raise
the issue at an earlier stage in the litigation.” Adler v. Wallace Computer
Servs., Inc., 202 F.R.D. 666, 675 (N.D. Ga. 2001). Finally, “[a] motion for
reconsideration is not an opportunity for the moving party . . . to instruct the
court on how the court ‘could have done it better’ the first time.” Pres.

4

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Endangered Areas of Cobb’s History, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 916
F. Supp. 1557, 1560 (N.D. Ga. 1995), aff’d, 87 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 1996).
II.

Plaintiffs’ Motion
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ arguments directed at the Court’s prior

Order do not fall within the limited range of objections that appropriately may
be raised in a motion for reconsideration and, in any event, lack merit.
Plaintiffs first argue that contrary to the Court’s finding that the spoliation of
the test tires was in bad faith (Order, Dkt. [134] at 10), Mr. Cottles “had no idea
the Court would order a re-inspection [of the test tires]” and therefore was “not
motivated by bad faith.” (Pl.’s Mot. for Reconsideration, Dkt. [135] at 3.) In
support of this argument, Plaintiffs contend that the test tires were sectioned in
September of 2010, four months after Plaintiffs originally produced the tires to
Defendant and several months before the Court found Plaintiffs in contempt and
ordered them to reproduce the test tires for Defendant’s reinspection. (Id.)
Plaintiffs further contend that the sectioning was conducted in the ordinary
course of Mr. Cottles’s testing, is a common practice in the industry, and was
not an attempt to frustrate Defendant or the Court. (Id.)

5

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

This argument does not warrant reconsideration of the Court’s February
Order. First, Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to raise these arguments before
the Court in its brief in opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions or at
oral argument held before this Court. Motions for reconsideration may not be
used to assert new arguments that could have been raised at an earlier stage of
the litigation. In any event, the Court finds these arguments to be without merit.
Plaintiffs contend that the sectioning occurred at a time when Mr. Cottles “had
no idea” that the Court would order a reinspection of the test tires. But as
explained above, Defendant, on June 7, 2010, specifically requested the Court
to order reproduction of the test tires. Therefore, as of that date, Plaintiffs were
on clear notice that such an order could issue and thus obligated to insure the
preservation of the test tires by Plaintiffs’ expert, Mr. Cottles. The Court need
not reconsider its finding that the sectioning of the test tires, which occurred in
September of 2010, was done in bad faith.
Plaintiffs’ second argument in support of its Motion for Reconsideration
is that the spoliation of the test tires left Plaintiffs and Defendant “on equal
footing” and therefore was not prejudicial to Defendant. (Dkt. [135] at 3-4.)
This argument has already been raised by Plaintiffs and rejected by the Court.
6

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

(Pl.’s Resp. to Def. MNA’s Motion for Sanctions Based on Spoliation of
Evidence, Dkt. [127] at 4; Order, Dkt. [134] at 9.) Accordingly, this argument
is not a proper ground for a motion for reconsideration.
Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’
Motion to Reconsider February 15, 2012 Spoliation Sanction Order against
Plaintiffs and Troy Cottles [135].

SO ORDERED, this 23rd

day of April, 2012.

________________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
United States District Judge

7

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)