Schneider et al v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al
ORDER denying 478 Motion for Reconsideration; finding as moot 478 Motion to Stay Deadlines. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge K. Gary Sebelius on 11/28/2017.(wh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RANDALL A. and AMY L. SCHNEIDER, )
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., et al.,
Case No. 13-4094-SAC
This matter comes before the court upon defendant Primerica Financial Services Home
Mortgages, Inc.’s (“Primerica’s”) Motion for Reconsideration of ECF 477 and Stay of
Deposition Deadline and Related Events under ECF 477(ECF No. 478).1 For the following
reasons, this motion is denied.
Primerica seeks reconsideration of the court’s order of June 29, 2017. In that order, the
court ordered a second Primerica Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition on three topics and required
Primerica to pay the travel costs of plaintiffs’ counsel to take the deposition and the costs of the
In this motion, Primerica asks the court to direct that the three topics be
addressed by the stipulation that has been presented to plaintiffs.
The court will not belabor this order with the background of this litigation as the parties
are quite familiar with it. The court will move quickly to consideration of the motion for
In response to Primerica’s motion, plaintiffs sought reconsideration of another matter in the court’s prior order.
This request is denied as untimely.
D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b) governs motions to reconsider non-dispositive orders, while Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60 govern motions to reconsider dispositive orders. 2 Here, the
court's opinion ordering a second Primerica deposition is non-dispositive, as it was not a decision
on the merits that resolved plaintiffs’ claims in the case. Therefore, the court considers
defendant's motion to reconsider under D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b).
Under D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b), grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include: (1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.3 A motion to reconsider allows the court to
“correct manifest errors of law or fact and to review newly discovered evidence.”4 A motion to
reconsider is available when the court has “misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the
controlling law.”5 Such a motion does not permit a party to “revisit issues already addressed or to
advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.”6 A party's failure to present its
strongest case in the first instance does not entitle it to a second chance in the form of a motion to
reconsider.7 Whether to grant a motion to reconsider is left to the court's discretion.8
D. Kan. Rule 7.3; Coffeyville Res. Ref. & Mktg., LLC v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1264 (D.
D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b).
Azzun v. Kan. Dep't Health & Env't, No. 10-2009, 2010 WL 148801, at *1 (D. Kan. Jan. 14, 2010).
Coffeyville, 748 F. Supp. 2d at 1264; see, e.g., Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)
(addressing motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b)).
Coffeyville, 748 F. Supp. 2d at 1264; see also Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.
A.H. ex rel. Hohe v. Knowledge Learning Corp., No. 09-2517, 2011 WL 1466490, at *4 (D.Kan. Apr. 8, 2011)
(citing Sithon Maritime Co. v. Holiday Mansion, 177 F.R.D. 504, 505 (D. Kan. 1998); Turner v. Nat'l Council of
State Bds. of Nursing, Inc., No. 11-2059, 2013 WL 139750, at *1–2 (D. Kan. Jan. 10, 2013) (citing Cline v. S. Star
Cent. Gas Pipeline, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 1130, 1132 (D. Kan. 2005), aff'd, 191 Fed.Appx. 822 (10th Cir. 2006)).
Brumark Corp v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 944 (10th Cir. 1995); Coffeyville, 748 F. Supp. 2d at 1264
(citing In re Motor Fuel Temp. Sales Practices Litig., 707 F. Supp. 2d 1145, 1166 (D. Kan. 2010)).
In support of this motion, Primerica argues that the use of the proposed stipulation is a
“streamlined and effective means” for plaintiffs to receive the information responsive to the three
topics. Primerica suggests that this procedure would save time, cost, and likely motion practice
relating to the second deposition. Primerica asserts that the factors required by Rule 7.3(b) are
The court finds no need to waste judicial resources in deciding this motion. While
Primerica’s motion has some merit, the court does not find that it meets the standards required by
D.Kan. 7.3(b). The court has continuously suggested to counsel that they should work together
to accomplish discovery in a timely and cost-effective manner.
The solution offered by
Primerica does comply with the court’s prior requests. Nevertheless, the stipulations offered by
Primerica are not a basis for reconsideration. Primerica has failed to offer any authority for such
a position, and the court is unable to find any such authority. Primerica could have offered this
solution prior to the scheduled deposition but failed to do so. Thus, Primerica’s motion shall be
The parties shall immediately proceed to complete the Primerica deposition by January
As noted in the prior order, the scheduling of this deposition and the details
concerning it should be addressed and handled by counsel for the parties.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Primerica Financial Services Home
Mortgages, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration of ECF 477 and Stay of Deposition Deadline and
Related Events under ECF 477 (ECF No. 478) is denied. The parties shall immediately proceed
to complete the Primerica deposition by January 12, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 28th day of November, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ K. Gary Sebelius
K. Gary Sebelius
U.S. Magistrate Judge
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?