WINE & CANVAS DEVELOPMENT LLC v. WEISSER et al
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).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
WINE & CANVAS DEVELOPMENT LLC,
YN CANVAS CA, LLC,
WEISSER MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC,
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:
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
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?