GE Capital Information Technology Solutions Inc v. Campbell Ads LLC et al
Filing
74
OPINION AND ORDER: Court DENIES 67 Motion to Vacate Or, In the Alternative, to Reconsider. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 7/25/2012. (tc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
G.E. CAPITAL INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC.,
)
)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
CAMPBELL ADS LLC and
)
DEBRA L. CAMPBELL,
)
)
Defendants
)
*******************************)
CAMPBELL ADS LLC and
)
DEBRA L. CAMPBELL,
)
)
Third Party Plaintiffs
)
)
v.
)
)
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC.,
)
)
Third Party Defendant
)
Case No. 2:11 cv 82
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Motion to Vacate Or,
In the Alternative, To Reconsider [DE 67] filed by the defendants, Campbell Ads LLC and Debra L. Campbell, on May 8, 2012.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
Background
On October 13, 2011, the plaintiff served the defendants
with its first interrogatories and requests for production.
The
defendants did not serve the plaintiff with a timely response,
and the plaintiff proceeded to file a motion to compel.
At the
December 2, 2011 status conference, the court directed the
defendants to respond to the outstanding discovery by December
18, 2011.
The plaintiff did not receive a response to the
outstanding discovery by this date and filed a motion for sanctions due to the defendants’ failure to comply with the court
order.
At the February 10, 2012 status conference, the court
again instructed the defendants to respond to the outstanding
discovery by February 17, 2012.
The defendants sent responses to
the outstanding discovery on February 17, 2012.
The defendants never responded to the motion for sanctions
or notified the court of their compliance.
On May 2, 2012, the
court granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.
The defen-
dants now move for reconsideration of the order granting sanctions.
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,
2
or perhaps an argument or aspect of the case which was overlooked."
Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004)
(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 conser3
vation of scarce judicial resources."
Global View Ltd. Venture
Capital v. Great Central Basin Exploration, 288 F.Supp.2d 482,
483 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)(internal quotation omitted).
The defendants argue that the court overlooked an aspect of
the case because the defendants delivered their responses to the
outstanding interrogatories and request for production on February 17, 2012, as last instructed by the court.
The defendants
overlook that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C) mandates the award of attorney fees when a party’s failure to comply
with discovery was not substantially justified.
The defendants
ignored the first two discovery deadlines, which is what prompted
the plaintiff to file the motion to compel.
The defendants never
filed a response or offered an explanation for failing to comply
with either of these deadlines.
The plaintiff should not bear
the cost for the defendants' failure to comply with the first two
deadlines, irregardless of whether the defendants eventually
complied.
Because Rule 37 demands the payment of attorney fees
associated with filing a motion to compel unless the non-cooperating party offers a sufficient justification, and here the
record is devoid of any explanation for why the defendants
ignored the first two deadlines, the court declines to reconsider its May 2, 2012 Opinion and Order awarding the plain-
4
tiff its attorney fees associated with filing its motion to
compel.
_______________
Based on the foregoing, the Motion to Vacate Or, In the
Alternative, To Reconsider [DE 67] filed by the defendants,
Campbell Ads LLC and Debra L. Campbell, on May 8, 2012, is
DENIED.
ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012
s/ ANDREW P. RODOVICH
United States Magistrate Judge
5
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?