Taylor et al v. Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP et al

Filing 1123

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING TWO MOTIONS (DKTS. 1115 , 1116 ) - Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. 1115 ) is DENIED. Plaintiffs Motion for Oral Argument on the Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. 1116 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jd)

Case 1:10-cv-00404-DCN-CWD Document 1123 Filed 07/22/21 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
DALE L. MIESEN, an individual who is
a shareholder and who is also bringing
this action on behalf of and/or in the right
of AIA Services Corporation and its
wholly owned subsidiary AIA Insurance,
Inc.,

Case No. 1:10-cv-00404-DCN
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER REGARDING TWO
MOTIONS (DKTS. 1115, 1116)

Plaintiff,
v.
HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS &
HAWLEY LLP, et al.,
Defendants,
and
CROP USA INSURANCE SERVICES,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants/Third-Party
Plaintiffs,
v.
REED TAYLOR, an individual,
Third-Party Defendant.

I. INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Dale L. Miesen’s Motion to Reconsider (Dkt.
1115) and Motion for Oral Argument on the Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. 1116). Miesen
asks the Court to reverse its Order (Dkt. 1112) precluding expert Richard McDermott from
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-1

Case 1:10-cv-00404-DCN-CWD Document 1123 Filed 07/22/21 Page 2 of 5

testifying in this case. The Court so ordered because it found that McDermott’s “opinions
did not meet muster under Federal Rule of Evidence 702” as “they will not help the trier
of fact and are the product of unreliable principles—impassioned and overly biased
opinions amounting to advocacy.” Id. at 9. The Court also precluded McDermott’s
testimony because “the probative value of any relevant testimony he were to give would
be substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice and misleading the jury,
thereby warranting exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.” Id. at 9–10.
Defendants Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP, Gary D. Babbitt, D. John Ashby,
and Richard A. Riley oppose both motions. Dkt. 1117. Defendants James Beck, Michael
Cashman, Connie Henderson, R. John Taylor, Crop USA Insurance Agency, Inc., and Crop
USA Insurance Services, LLC join in the opposition. Dkt. 1118.
There are a few reasons the Court will not hold oral argument. First, the Court has
reviewed the record and briefs, and the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are
adequately presented. Second, there is the interest of avoiding further delay, and oral
argument will not significantly aid the decisional process. Third, the Court did not find oral
argument necessary on the original motions related to the issue of excluding McDermott’s
testimony, much less now on the motion to reconsider. And, lastly, Miesen’s Motion to
Reconsider is improperly raised. Accordingly, the Court will decide the Motion to
Reconsider without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 78(b).
For these reasons, and the those that follow, the Court finds good cause to DENY
both motions.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-2

Case 1:10-cv-00404-DCN-CWD Document 1123 Filed 07/22/21 Page 3 of 5

II. LEGAL STANDARD
Granting or denying a motion for reconsideration is a matter within a district court’s
discretion. Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A
district court has inherent authority and wide latitude in controlling—among other things—
its calendar and docket, as well as its orders and decisions. A district court “possesses the
inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause
seen by it to be sufficient.” City of L.A. v. Santa Monica BayKeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885
(9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Melancon v. Texaco, Inc., 659 F.2d 551, 553 (5th Cir. 1981)).
Ultimately, it is the court’s duty “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. In certain circumstances,
this may mean that a court must reconsider, modify, or even reverse a prior determination.
Other times, this means a court must advance a case. Thus, the need to be right must coexist with the need for progress in a particular case.
Motions to reconsider involve a two-step inquiry. “[A] party must first establish that
they have the right to ask for reconsideration; that is to say, they must establish that one or
more of the limited grounds for reconsideration are present. If that is the case, the moving
party must then convince the court that their purported reasons rise to the level of
reversal.” United States ex rel. Rafter H Constr., LLC v. Big-D Constr. Corp., 358 F. Supp.
3d 1096, 1098 (D. Idaho 2019). “[R]econsideration is an extraordinary remedy available
only when: (1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) the court
committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an
intervening change in the controlling law.” Dickinson Frozen Foods, Inc. v. FF5 Food
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-3

Case 1:10-cv-00404-DCN-CWD Document 1123 Filed 07/22/21 Page 4 of 5

Process Solutions Corp., Case No: 1:17-cv-00519-DCN, 2020 WL 2841517, at *10 (D.
Idaho June 1, 2020) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d
1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)); see also Christianson v. Colt. Indus. Operating Corp., 486
U.S. 800, 817 (1988) (“As a rule the court should be loathe to [reconsider] in the absence
of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was clearly erroneous and
would work a manifest injustice.” (cleaned up)).
III. DISCUSSION
The Court declines to reconsider its previous decision. Miesen has neither presented
any newly discovered evidence nor identified an intervening change in the controlling law.
Miesen solely argues that the Court committed clear error in its previous Order. However,
he has not properly set forth his arguments because they do not show that the Court clearly
erred. Rather, Miesen’s arguments simply show that he disagrees with the Court’s decision.
This is an insufficient reason for the Court to reverse its prior ruling.
All Miesen’s arguments relate to the same issue the Court already decided in its
previous Order. For example, he contends that McDermott is not an advocate, partisan, or
unobjective expert. See Dkt. 1115-1, at 3. He also asserts that opposing counsel has
produced no evidence of such. See id. at 6. However, the Court already dealt with these
issues and found to the contrary. It is improper for Miesen to raise these arguments again.
Am. Rivers v. NOAA Fisheries, No. CV-04-00061-RE, 2006 WL 1983178, at *2 (D. Or.
July 14, 2006) (“The motion to reconsider should not be used to ask the court to rethink
matters already decided.”); Dickinson Frozen Foods, Inc., 2020 WL 2841517, at *12 (“A
court’s opinions are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-4

Case 1:10-cv-00404-DCN-CWD Document 1123 Filed 07/22/21 Page 5 of 5

reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.” (cleaned up)); id. at *11 (“A motion for
reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time
when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” (cleaned up)); id. at
*20 (“[M]otions for reconsideration are not occasions for raising arguments for the first
time or developing previously undeveloped arguments.”).
More importantly, none of Miesen’s arguments convinced the Court before, nor do
they convince the Court to revisit its ruling now. What Miesen has done in his motion is
simply insufficient for the Court to reverse its prior decision to preclude McDermott as an
expert witness in this case. Accordingly, both of Miesen’s motions are denied.
IV. ORDER
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. 1115) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Oral Argument on the Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. 1116)
is DENIED.

DATED: July 22, 2021
_________________________
David C. Nye
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-5