Means v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company et al

Filing 162

OPINION AND ORDER: Court GRANTS 54 the Objection to Defendants' Motion to Enlarge Discovery Cut Off Deadline and Motion to Reconsider Order Dated 11/21/2011. The plaintiff is not required to respond to the defendants untimely discovery requests. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 1/27/2012. (tc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
RODNEY S. MEANS,

)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, its)
Successors and Assigns, DEUTSCHE)
BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY as )
Trustee for Ameriquest
)
Securities, Inc. Asset-Backed
)
Pass-Through Certificates,
)
Series 2006-R-1, AMERICAN HOME )
MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC.,
)
)
Defendants
)

CIVIL NO. 2:06-cv-409

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Objection to Defendants’ Motion to Enlarge Discovery Cut Off Deadline and Motion to
Reconsider Order Dated 11-21-2011 [DE 154] filed by the plaintiff, Rodney S. Means, on December 4, 2011.

For the following

reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
Background
On July 14, 2011, the court set the discovery deadline for
November 21, 2011.

On November 21, 2011, counsel for Ameriquest

Mortgage Company and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company left
plaintiff’s counsel a voicemail and sent an e-mail requesting
consent for an enlargement of time to complete discovery.
tiff’s counsel responded that she did not consent.

Plain-

After learn-

ing that plaintiff’s counsel did not consent, defense counsel
filed a motion for extension of time.

In their motion, the

defendants stated "Discovery is not complete at this time,
however, as the parties have outstanding discovery requests and
potential unresolved discovery issues among them."
The court granted the defendants’ motion the following day.
The plaintiff’s counsel was out of the office and did not see the
defendants’ motion or the court order until November 27, 2011.
On December 4, 2011, the plaintiff’s counsel filed this motion to
reconsider the extension of time to conduct discovery, arguing
that the defendants misrepresented the progress of discovery and
that the plaintiff will be prejudiced by the extension.
Discussion
Although they are frequently filed, the Court of Appeals has
described a motion for reconsideration as "a motion that, strictly speaking, does not exist under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure."

Hope v. United States, 43 F.3d 1140, 1142 n.2 (7th

Cir. 1994).

See also Talano v. Northwestern Medical Faculty

Foundation, Inc., 273 F.3d 757, 760 n.1 (7th Cir. 2001).

This

type of motion "is a request that the [Court] reexamine its
decision in light of additional legal arguments, a change of law,
or perhaps an argument or aspect of the case which was overlooked."

Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004)

2

(internal quotation omitted).

See also United States v. Ligas,

549 F.3d 497, 501 (7th Cir. 2008)("A district court may reconsider a prior decision when there has been a significant change
in the law or facts since the parties presented the issue to the
court, when the court misunderstands a party’s arguments, or when
the court overreaches by deciding an issue not properly before
it.").

In Frietsch v. Refco, Inc., 56 F.3d 825 (7th Cir. 1995),

the Court of Appeals did not question the availability of a
motion to reconsider but stated:
It is not the purpose of allowing motions for
reconsideration to enable a party to complete
presenting his case after the court has ruled
against him. Were such a procedure to be
countenanced, some lawsuits really might
never end, rather than just seeming endless.
56 F.3d at 828

See also Oto v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 224 F.3d
601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000)("A party may not use a motion for reconsideration to introduce new evidence that could have been presented earlier."); Divane v. Krull Electric Company, 194 F.3d
845, 850 (7th Cir. 1999); LB Credit Corporation v. Resolution

Trust Corporation, 49 F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir. 1995).

Ulti-

mately, a motion for reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy
to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources."

3

Global View Ltd. Venture

Capital v. Great Central Basin Exploration, 288 F.Supp.2d 482,
483 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)(internal quotation omitted).
In their motion for extension of the discovery deadline, the
defendants informed the court that discovery was not complete and
that the parties had outstanding discovery requests and unresolved discovery issues.

What the defendants did not tell the

court was that the discovery delays were the product of the
defendants’ failure to respond and untimely discovery requests.
The defendants’ motion gave the impression that all parties had
additional discovery they wished to complete.

Because Judge

Springmann advised the parties that extensions of time would not
be readily granted and the defendants’ did not accurately inform
the court of the progress of discovery, the court GRANTS the
Objection to Defendants’ Motion to Enlarge Discovery Cut Off
Deadline and Motion to Reconsider Order Dated 11-21-2011 [DE 154]
filed by the plaintiff, Rodney S. Means, on December 4, 2011.
The plaintiff is not required to respond to the defendants’
untimely discovery requests.
ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2012

s/ ANDREW P. RODOVICH
United States Magistrate Judge

4