Martin v Teusch et al
Filing
173
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 165 , 166 and 167 MOTIONS for Reconsideration filed by Anthony C Martin. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 7/12/11. (jcp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
ANTHONY C. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW TEUSCH, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 1:09-CV-321
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are three motions to reconsider (Docket # 165, 166, 167) filed by pro se
Plaintiff Anthony Martin, requesting that the Court reconsider its Opinion and Order dated June
17, 2011 (Docket # 164), granting Defendants’ motion to strike three sets of requests for
admissions filed by Martin nearly six months after the November 16, 2010, close of discovery.
A hearing was held today on the motion, with Martin appearing in person and counsel for
Defendants appearing telephonically, and oral argument on the motion was heard and concluded.
(Docket # 172.)
A motion for reconsideration performs a valuable, but limited, function: “to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Caisse Nationale De
Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269-70 (7th Cir. 1996); Bank of Waunakee v.
Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990) (stating that the problems a
motion to reconsider is designed to remedy “rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be
equally rare”). A motion for reconsideration cannot “be employed as a vehicle to introduce new
evidence that could have been adduced during the pendency of the . . . motion.” Caisse
Nationale, 90 F.3d at 1269-70.
Here, Martin argues that his motion to reconsider should be granted and Defendants
ordered to answer his request for admissions, because he purportedly never received a copy of
Defendants’ May 24, 2011, motion to strike (a frequent refrain of Martin in his other cases).1
However, even accepting that assertion as true, Martin does not claim that he failed to receive
the Court’s Order dated that same day, affording him until June 10, 2011, to file a response to the
motion to strike (Docket # 162), and this should have at least prompted some inquiry. Indeed,
the Court did not strike the requests for admissions until nearly one month later, on June 17,
2011, noting at that time Martin’s lack of response to the motion. (Docket # 164.)
“Reconsideration is not an appropriate forum for . . . arguing matters that could have been heard
during the pendency of the previous motion.” Caisse Nationale, 90 F.3d at 1269-70.
Of course, the real problem with Martin’s discovery and his motion to reconsider is that
he submitted his discovery much too late. Martin, however, suggests that the reason he initiated
discovery so late (nearly six months beyond the deadline) was because he did not receive
adequate discovery responses from Defendants during the nine months that discovery was open.
Martin’s contention, however, is undercut by his failure to file a motion to compel at the time,
and still does not explain why he failed to file requests for admissions within the discovery
period, or why he waited six more months to do so. See generally Holliday v. WSIE 88.7 FM
Radio Station, No. 04-237-MJR, 2007 WL 1594986, at *1 (S.D. Ill. June 1, 2007) (“The court
considers requests for admissions to be a form of discovery, and to be governed by the discovery
deadline.”); Shroyer v. Vaughn, No. 1:00-CV-256, 2002 WL 32144316, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Ind. July
1
Because Martin has, in the past, alleged that he failed to receive court-related mailings, he has been
admonished to check the record in the Clerk’s office on a frequent basis. It appears that Martin did not follow that
admonishment here.
2
10, 2002) (agreeing with the majority view that requests for admissions are discovery subject to
the discovery deadlines). Thus, Martin does not establish either good cause for his extraordinary
delay, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3), or excusable neglect, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), and his untimely
requests for admissions were therefore properly stricken.
In short, no “manifest error of law or fact” was committed in striking Martin’s
delinquent discovery requests. Caisse Nationale, 90 F.3d at 1269. Accordingly, upon
reconsideration the Court’s original determination will remain undisturbed, and Martin’s
motions to reconsider (Docket # 165, 166, 167) are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 12th day of July, 2011.
/S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?