Finnegan et al v. Myers et al

Filing 167

OPINION AND ORDER denying 166 Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 8/19/13. (smp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ROMAN FINNEGAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LAUREL MYERS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:08-CV-503

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Response to Plaintiffs’
Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order and Motion to Reconsider,
filed by Defendants, Laurel Myers, Regina McAnich, Tracy Salyers,
Reba James, James Payne, and Jennifer McDonald, on August 12, 2013
(DE #166).

For the reasons set forth below, the motion to

reconsider (DE #166) is DENIED.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Review pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A),
objecting to the July 3, 2013 order (“Order”) entered by United
States Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein (DE #159). The
Magistrate’s order declined to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs
to serve expert reports (which was February 1, 2010), and limited
Plaintiffs to 3 more depositions within the discovery period, to be

completed by September 2, 2013.

(DE #159.)

Plaintiffs asked that

Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein’s order be reversed, allowing them an
extension

to

file

expert

reports

and

to

conduct

additional

depositions.
Because there was a limited time to finish depositions, and
due to the protracted nature of this case, as a courtesy, this
Court quickly ruled upon the objection to the Magistrate’s order so
that the parties would know how to proceed in the final few weeks
of discovery.

The Court overruled Judge Nuechterlein’s order

precluding expert reports, referring the matter back to him to set
a new deadline for expert reports.

(DE #163.)

And the Court

overruled the objection limiting the Plaintiffs to three final
depositions.
expert

Id.

witness

Judge Nuechterlein then ordered the Defendant

disclosures

Plaintiffs by October 2, 2013.

and

reports

to

be

delivered

to

(DE #165).

Since then, Defendant Laskey filed a response to Plaintiffs’
objection (DE #164) and Defendants filed the instant response and
motion to reconsider (DE #166), all of which the Court has reviewed
and considered.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of a Rule 59(e) motion is to bring to the court's
attention “a manifest error of law or fact, or newly discovered
evidence.”

Bordelon v. Chicago School Reform Bd. of Trustees, 233

2

F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing LB Credit Corp. v. Resolution
Trust Corp., 49 F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir. 1995)).

It “does not

provide a vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures,
and it certainly does not allow a party to introduce new evidence
or advance arguments that could and should have been presented to
the district court prior to the judgment.”

Id. (quoting Moro v.

Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 1996)).

It is not

intended as an opportunity to reargue the merits of a case.

See

Neal v. Newspaper Holdings, Inc. 349 F.3d 363, 368 (7th Cir. 2003)
(affirming district court’s decision to deny appellants’ Rule 59(e)
motion to alter or amend judgment where plaintiff simply reargued
the merits of his case); see also Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247,
249 (7th Cir. 2004) (“A motion that merely republishes the reasons
that had failed to convince the tribunal in the first place gives
the tribunal no reason to change its mind.”). Moreover, the moving
party must “clearly establish” a manifest error of law or an
intervening

change

in

the

controlling

law

or

discovered evidence to succeed under Rule 59(e).

present

newly

Romo v. Gulf

Stream Coach, Inc., 250 F.3d 1119, 1122 n. 3 (7th Cir. 2001).
In this case, reconsideration is not warranted.

This Court

acknowledged in its order that Plaintiffs failed to provide expert
reports by the deadline (back in 2010), but that because the
discovery

and

entire

case

has

revolved

around

the

medical

witnesses, it would be overly prejudicial and unfair to all the

3

parties

involved

to

exclude

expert

opinions

from

the

case.

Importantly, Defendants have been aware of the medical opinions in
this case for years, and they will be provided with the expert
witness disclosures and reports by October 2013, thus no prejudice
will be suffered.
yet,

thus

the

A trial date has not even been set in this case

parties

have

ample

time

to

digest

the

expert

disclosures and reports.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth below, the motion to reconsider (DE
#166) is DENIED.

DATED: August 19, 2013

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

4