Netherlands Insurance Company v. Knight et al

Filing 156

ORDER by Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman denying 147 Motion to Compel. A Motion Hearing in re 129 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and 154 MOTION for Extension of Time to File is set for 11/29/2012 at 11:00 AM by telephone from Peoria (court will place call) before Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman. Entered on 11/6/12. (WW, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 06 November, 2012 11:28:27 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Netherlands Insurance Company,
Plaintiff
v.
National Casualty Company, et al,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10-4043

ORDER
Now before the Court is the Renewed Motion to Compel (#147) filed by National Casualty
Company. The motion is fully briefed, and I have carefully considered the arguments of the parties.
As stated herein, the motion is denied.
I. DISCUSSION
On April 27, 2012, this Court entered an Order (Doc. #145) denying National Casualty’s
motions to compel in their entirety. In this Renewed Motion to Compel, National Casualty
challenges two “factual grounds” on which it asserts the Court based that Order: that there was no
contractual duty between it and the other insurers and parties involved in this dispute, and that no
common interest existed between it and the other insurers and parties involved in this dispute. The
responding parties assert that this motion is actually a motion to reconsider the prior Order. I agree.
The “factual grounds” with which National Casualty takes issue are not actually factual.
Whether a duty existed or a common interest existed are legal conclusions drawn from the facts that
are before the Court. The relief sought by National Casualty is correction of what it contends was
an error of those legal conclusions. “Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct

1

manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Caisse Nationale de Credit
v CBI Industries, 90 F3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir 1996).
Movant asserts that because these “factual” matters were not raised by any party or presented
to the Court prior to the Order, this is not a motion to reconsider. This is simply incorrect. The Court
ruled on motions to compel the precise information being sought here. National Casualty challenges
the correctness of that ruling and here asserts additional factual information that it contends the
Court should consider in reviewing those legal conclusions. This is nothing if it is not a motion to
reconsider.
It is not appropriate to argue matters in a motion to reconsider that could have been raised
in prior motions or rehash previously rejected arguments. Id at 1270. See also, In re Ray, 597 F3d
871 (7th Cir 2010). “Motions for reconsideration do not provide a vehicle for a party to introduce
new evidence or legal theories that could have been presented earlier.” Caisse Nationale, 90 F.3d
at 1269, quoted in Jolly Group, Ltd. v Medline Industries, Inc., 435 F3d 717, 720 (7th Cir 2006).
Our sister Court in the Northern District has noted that such motions are “rarely appropriate”
and should only be presented when law or facts change significantly after the issue has been
presented; when the court has “patently misunderstood a party;” when the court has made a decision
outside the adversarial issues presented; or when the court has made an error “not of reasoning but
of apprehension.” Newsome v. James, 2000 WL 656680 at *1 (ND Ill), cting Bank of Waunakee v
Rochester Cheese Sales, 906 F 2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir 1990). See also, Rotthwell Coton Co. v.
Rosenthal & Co., 827 F2d 246, 251 (7th Cir 1987).
While this Court has inherent authority to reconsider its prior interlocutory decisions, Moses
H. Cone Memorial Hospital v Mercury Construction Corp., 460 US 1, 12 (1983); Sims v EGA

2

Products Inc., 475 F3d 865, 870 (7th Cir 2007), there is nothing about the posture of this case that
requires it to do so. Accordingly, the “renewed” motion to compel is DENIED.
II. CONCLUSION
The Renewed Motion to Compel (#147) is DENIED for the reasons stated above.
Also pending in this case are two motions relating to the schedule of the case (#129 and 165).
Those motions are set for telephone hearing on November 29, 2012 at 11:00 AM (Court will set up
the call).
ENTER this 6th day of November, 2012
s/ John A. Gorman
JOHN A. GORMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3