Filing 295

ORDER - denying 289 Motion for Reconsideration; *** SEE ORDER ***. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/15/2014. Copy Mailed. (CKM) Modified on 4/16/2014 to reflect correct file date (TRG).

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION WINE & CANVAS DEVELOPMENT LLC, Plaintiff, vs. THEODORE WEISSER, CHRISTOPHER MUYLLE, YN CANVAS CA, LLC, WEISSER MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:11-cv-01598-TWP-DKL ENTRY ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Wine & Canvas Development LLC’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 289). “Motions to reconsider serve a limited function, to be used ‘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.’” Davis v. Carmel Clay Sch., 286 F.R.D. 411, 412 (S.D. Ind. 2012) (quoting Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)) (additional quotations omitted). A court may grant a motion to reconsider where a movant demonstrates a manifest error of law or fact; however, a motion to reconsider is not an occasion to make new arguments. In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324 (7th Cir. 1996); Granite St. Ins. Co. v. Degerlia, 925 F.2d 189, 192 n. 7 (7th Cir. 1991). A motion to reconsider may also be appropriate where there has been “a controlling or significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the issue to the Court.” Bank of Waunakee, 906 F.2d at 1191 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Motions for reconsideration in the district courts are generally disfavored because “a re-do of a matter that has already received the court’s attention is seldom a productive use of taxpayer resources because it places all other matters on hold.” Burton v. McCormick, No. 3:11–CV–026, 2011 WL 1792849, at *1 (N.D. Ind. May 11, 2011) (quoting United States v. Menominee Tribal Enters., No. 07–C–317, 2009 WL 1373952, at *1 (E.D. Wis. May 15, 2009)). Wine & Canvas contends the Court has made an error assessing the damage to Tamara Scott’s relationship with her father, Donald McCracken—both Third-Party Defendants—if Defendant Christopher Muylle is allowed to reopen the deposition of Mr. McCracken. Wine & Canvas has not presented argument or new law that would support a different ruling on a motion for reconsideration. The Court reiterates however, that the deposition may be reopened for inquiry of this one issue and a one-half day or even a one hour deposition seems excessive and unreasonable. Because Wine & Canvas has not provided a legitimate basis upon which the Court should reconsider its prior order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), the Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. 289) is DENIED. So Ordered: 04/15/2014 Date: ______________ ________________________ Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Distribution: THEODORE WEISSER 25 Rodeo Ave., Apt. 2 Sausalito, CA 94965 P. Adam Davis DAVIS & SARBINOFF LLP Carol Nemeth Joven PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY Ronald J. Waicukauski PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY

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?