THATCHER et al v. PERKINS, VAN NATTA, SANDOVE and KELLY, MERDIAN PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, P.C.

Filing 76

ENTRY on Motion for Reconsideration - Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. 74 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/7/2012. (TRG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
PATRICIA THATCHER, CARLY PLAYFORD
and BROOKE SNODGRASS,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
PERKINS-VAN NATTA PLASTIC SURGERY, P.C., )
)
Defendant.
)

Case No. 1:10-cv-1115-TWP-TAB

ENTRY ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt 74) requesting the Court
to reconsider its Order denying Plaintiff’s request oral argument (Dkt. 71). Specifically,
Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its ruling under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 60 and argue
the Court’s Order was entered in advance of Plaintiffs having an opportunity to file their Reply,
and that filings by Defendant give further credence to the utility of having oral argument on the
motion for summary judgment.
Motions to reconsider serve a very limited purpose and are only appropriate for those
“rare” situations where the court “has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision
outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has 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) (citation omitted).

Because none of these exceptions apply,

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.
First, Plaintiffs argue the Court’s Order denying Plaintiffs’ Request for Oral Argument
was prematurely entered; however, Local Rule 7-1 does not provide parties a "right" to file a
reply to a request for oral argument. A request for oral argument is not a motion under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is more aligned with L.R.7-1 (d), which allows the court to

rule on a routine motion before the response deadline passes. Further, Local Rule 7-5 states
"The court may: grant or deny a request for oral argument or an evidentiary hearing in its sole
discretion".
Next, Plaintiffs argue the Court erred as there is a need for oral argument because
Defendant has raised new matters for this Court’s consideration in its Reply. However, the
remedy if Plaintiffs believe new matters are raised in a summary judgment reply is the filing of a
surreply, not a request for oral argument. LR 56-1 (d) provides: “If, in reply, the moving party
relies upon evidence not previously cited or objects to the admissibility of the non-moving
party’s evidence, the non-moving party may file a surreply brief limited to such new evidence
and objections, no later than 7 days after service of the reply brief.” Plaintiffs elected not to file
a surreply and “parties” are not allowed to present additional evidence at an oral argument.
In this case, the three motions for summary judgment (Dkt. 45, 48 and 51) have been
fully and thoroughly briefed by the parties. At this time, the Court does not find oral argument
necessary. The Court has properly used its discretion to deny the motion for oral argument.
And, if at the time of analysis and preparation of the ruling on the motions for summary
judgment, the Court determines oral argument would be helpful, the Court may on its own, set
oral argument without a request from either party (See Local Rule 7-5 (d)(2).
Because the Court has not “patently misunderstood a party,” has not decided an issue
outside the scope of adversarial presentation, and has not “made an error not of reasoning but of
apprehension,” Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. 74) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
12/07/2012
Date: ________________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
2

DISTRIBUTION:
James D. Masur, II
ROBERT W. YORK & ASSOCIATES
[e-mail]
Robert W. York
ROBERT W. YORK & ASSOCIATES
[e-mail]
Amanda L. Shelby
FAEGRE BAKR DANIELS LLP – Indianapolis
[e-mail]
Edward E. Hollis
FAEGRE BAKR DANIELS LLP – Indianapolis
[e-mail]
Sarah Jenkins
FAEGRE BAKR DANIELS LLP – Indianapolis
[e-mail]

3