Lozier v. Quincy University Corporation et al

Filing 242

OPINION AND ORDER entered by District Judge Sue E Myerscough on 11/22/2024: Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (d/e 235 ) is DENIED. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (d/e 239 ) is DENIED as MOOT. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. (BL)

E-FILED

Friday, 22 November, 2024 04:05:24 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
BRIAN HOLZGRAFE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL R. LOZIER, II,
Defendant.

Case No. 18-CV-3077

OPINION AND ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:
Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider and
Memorandum in Support (d/e 235, 236), Plaintiff’s Response to
Defendant’s Motion (d/e 240), Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s
Memorandum in Support (d/e 239), and Defendant’s Response in
Opposition. (d/e 241). For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion
to Reconsider is DENIED and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s
Memorandum in Support is DENIED as MOOT.
I.

Background

On May 1, 2024, Defendant filed an Emergency Motion for an
Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Post-Trial Motions, or in
the Alternative, for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief. (d/e 209).
Page 1 of 7

On May 2, 2024, this Court entered an order denying
Defendant’s Motion. (May 2, 2024 Text Order). Specifically, the Court
noted that it would not rule on the motion for leave to file
supplemental brief or an extension to file such a motion until
Defendant met the deadline prescribed by Federal Rule 6.
On May 9, 2024, Defendant filed his Post-Trial Motions (d/e
210). This briefing set out each of Defendant’s grounds for a new trial
and challenged the Court’s evidentiary rulings at trial. (d/e 210). On
May 23, 2024, Defendant filed a Renewed Motion to file Supplemental
Briefing and Memorandum in Support (d/e 222, 223), to which
Plaintiff filed his Response. (d/e 225). On October 3, 2024, the Court
denied Defendant’s Renewed Motion to File Supplemental Briefing.
(October 3, 2024 Text Order).
On October 7, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion to Reconsider the
Court’s October 3, 2024 Order. (d/e 235). Specifically, Defendant
argues this Court erred in many ways before and during the trial.
Additionally, Defendant argues the Court should allow Defendant to
file supplemental briefing because the trial transcript is newly
discovered evidence, which permits a Motion to Reconsider.
Page 2 of 7

Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s Motion arguing
Defendant fails to meet the standard for reconsideration. Further,
Defendant’s memorandum in support should be struck as its filing
ignores the Court’s directive of no supplemental post-trial briefing.
(d/e 240).
II.

Analysis

Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider (d/e 235) is Denied.
Reconsideration is not appropriate for rehashing arguments or
raising new matters that could have been heard during the pendency
of the previous motions. Caisse Nationale de Cred Agricole v. CBI
Indust., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1996). See also Ahmed v.
Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004). To prevail on a motion
for reconsideration under Rule 59, the movant must present either
newly discovered evidence or establish a manifest error of law or fact.
Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000). A
“manifest error” is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the
losing party. Manifest error the “wholesale disregard, misapplication,
or failure to recognize controlling precedent.” Id.
Defendant moves for reconsideration of the Court’s October 3,
2024 Text Order based on the Court’s alleged misapprehension of the
Page 3 of 7

libel doctrine of “actual malice” and the newly available trial
transcripts.
As an initial matter, the Court does not interpret “actual malice”
in its October 3, 2024 Text Order. Nor was there any analysis of libel,
actual malice, or discussion of any errors of law and fact at trial.
Rather, the Court’s order related only to whether the Defendant could
file a supplemental post-trial motion. Therefore, the Court will not
address its alleged misapprehension of “actual malice” at this
juncture or the extensive arguments regarding alleged errors the
Court committed at trial. The Court will take up those arguments
when ruling on Defendant’s post-trial motions.
The Court, in denying Defendant’s motion for supplemental
briefing, noted the absence of Seventh Circuit case law allowing
extensions under Rule 6. Further, the Court found Defendant has
not been prejudiced when filing post-trial motions in this Court, and,
therefore, Defendant’s argument he was suffering from prejudice was
unpersuasive. Defendant’s motion does not allege a misapplication of
law as to these points and does not address these findings.
Along with a misapplication, Defendant argues the Court
should reconsider its Order because the transcript of the trial has
Page 4 of 7

been recently filed and this is newly discovered evidence. This Court
disagrees. The trial transcript by itself is not new evidence. The
Court, when issuing its October Order, was aware the transcript was
recently filed on the docket by the court reporter, and in fact, noted
that Defendant may use said transcript in his appellate briefing and
argument. Defendant seemingly argues there are specifics in the
record he did not know about and that makes the transcript new. In
support of this contention, Defendant provides a Memorandum of
Law in Support of his Motion to Reconsider. The arguments in this
memorandum, however, are almost identical to those in Defendant’s
post-trial motions, with transcript citations.
The Court finds that the recently filed transcript is not newly
discovered evidence given the Court’s awareness of the transcript at
the time of its October Order. In addition, the arguments made in
Defendant’s Memorandum use the transcript as additional support,
but do not provide any additional argument he has not previously
made. Further, Defendant has suffered no prejudice in his post-trial
briefing as the arguments in his Motion to Reconsider are almost
identical to those in his post-trial motions, but for the citations.

Page 5 of 7

Defendant’s arguments in his Motion to Reconsider do not point
to the Court misapplying the law as to its October 3, 2024 Order and
the filing of the trial transcript is not new evidence to this Court or
the Defendant as evidenced by his identical arguments.
CONCLUSION
In ruling on Defendant’s Motion to File Supplemental Briefing,
the Court reviewed Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff’s Response, relevant
case law, and the applicable federal rules. The Court found
Defendant was not entitled to file supplemental briefings as Rule 6
forbids extensions of time to file post-trial briefings, and Defendant’s
position is distinguishable from the case law he provided. Defendant
provided a lengthy post-trial brief cementing his arguments and
evidence in support.
This Court is not convinced by Defendant’s arguments as to any
manifest error of its application of the law or alleged newly discovered
evidence, in the form of a recently filed transcript. Therefore,
Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (d/e 235) is DENIED. Given
the Court’s findings as to Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (d/e 239) is DENIED as MOOT.

Page 6 of 7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: November 22, 2024.
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Sue E. Myerscough____________
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 7 of 7