PATEL v. MENARD, INC.

Filing 188

ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS - The Court has resolved to OVERRULE Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Demonstrative Exhibits (Dkt. No. 179 ). For now, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's Objection to Use of Dr. Robert Shuman's Deposition (Dkt. No. 181 ). Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Hearing (Dkt. No. 185 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/21/2011. **SEE ENTRY** (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
SANJAY PATEL, on behalf of his minor child, )
R.P.
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MENARD, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)

Case No. 1:09-cv-0360-TWP-DML

ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS
Before the Court are Defendant’s Objection to Plaintiff’s Demonstrative Exhibits (Dkt.
No. 179), Defendant’s Objection to Use of Dr. Robert Shuman’s Deposition Transcript (Dkt. No.
181) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Hearing (Dkt. No. 185). The Court has worked hard
to resolve the parties’ disputes in a thorough and efficient fashion. However, the Court’s
responsiveness should not be perceived as a blank check to file every conceivable grievance.
It appears that counsels’ formerly collegial relationship has degenerated over the past few days.
Suffice it to say, the parties would be well-advised to stop, take a deep breath, and begin
behaving amicably once again. That said, the Court orders the following:
Defendant’s Objection to Plaintiff’s Demonstrative Exhibits (Dkt. No. 179)
As Defendant concedes, the use of demonstrative exhibits is within the discretion of the
trial court. Wipf v. Kowalski, 519 F.3d 380, 387 (7th Cir. 2008). The Court has resolved to
OVERRULE Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Demonstrative Exhibits, with two caveats.
First, Plaintiff needs to reference the injured minor child as “R.P.” on the exhibits. Second,
Plaintiff needs to remove the “PROOF” language. Finally, on Monday morning, Plaintiff will be

given the opportunity to authenticate these exhibits prior to opening statements. The Court will
admonish the jury that these exhibits are demonstrative only.
Defendant’s Objection to Use of Dr. Robert Shuman’s Deposition (Dkt. No. 181)
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to properly designate the portions of Dr.
Shuman’s testimony that he intends to use at trial in conformance with the Court’s order on the
final pretrial conference (Dkt. No. 170). To clarify, Plaintiff needs to furnish Defendant with
specific portions (page and line numbers) of Dr. Shuman’s deposition that he intends to use. The
Court, sua sponte, will give the Plaintiff until noon on Saturday, October 22, 2011 to specify to
Defendant the exact portions of Dr. Shuman’s testimony that he intends to use and which portions
of the 8 hour deposition he will eliminate. Failure to meet this directive may result in some form
of sanction, up to and including the exclusion of Dr. Shuman as a witness. Any objections to the
designated portions can be filed by the parties on CM/ECF during the weekend and addressed by
the Court on Monday, October 24, 2011 at 8:00 a.m. For now, the Court OVERRULES the
objection.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Hearing (Dkt. No. 185)
The sole issue remaining in Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency hearing is a request to
reconsider the Court’s ruling quashing the subpoenas duces tecum. First of all, such a motion
should be filed as a separate instrument and not a paragraph within a motion for emergency
hearing. Reconsideration of an interlocutory order may be appropriate when the facts or law on
which the decision was based change significantly after issuance of the order, or when the court
has misunderstood a party, made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented by the parties,
or made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension. Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese
Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir.1990). A motion to reconsider is to be granted only in
2

such extraordinary circumstances. A party seeking reconsideration can’t introduce new evidence
or legal theories that could have been presented earlier or simply rehash previously rejected
arguments. Id.; see also Atchley v. Heritage Cable Vision Assoc., 926 F.Supp. 1381, 1383-1384
(N.D.Ind.1996). In its brief argument, Plaintiff fails to provide material facts or legal precedent
not previously submitted. The Court, therefore, is not inclined to conduct an emergency hearing
on the eve of trial to address a motion to reconsider. The facts and law on which the Court's
decision was based have not changed after issuance of the order.

Plaintiff’s Motion for

Emergency Hearing (Dkt. No. 185) is therefore DENIED.

SO ORDERED. 10/21/2011

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Copies to:

Richard D. Hailey
RAMEY & HAILEY
[e-mail]

Joel Samuel Paul
RAMEY & HAILEY
[e-mail],lawjoel@hot
mail.com

Justin W. Leverton
RAMEY & HAILEY LAW FIRM
[e-mail]

Mary Beth Ramey
RAMEY & HAILEY
[e-mail]

Jeremy Michael Padgett
TYRA LAW FIRM P.C.
[e-mail],amy.heustis@tyra
law.net

Kevin C. Tyra
THE TYRA LAW FIRM, P.C.
[e-mail],amy.heustis@tyrala
w.net

3