Adair v. Wichita Public Schools, Unified School District No. 259 et al

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 47 Motion for Reconsideration re 45 Order and 43 Order re 41 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 3/25/15. Mailed to pro se party Ezekiel Adair by regular mail. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
EZEKIEL ADAIR,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WICHITA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
)
(USD 259), et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
)

Case No. 14-1174-EFM-KGG

MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion asking the Court to “reconsider
its denial of new found information and in camera review.” (Doc. 47, at 3.) The
Court’s prior Order (Doc. 43) granted Plaintiff’s underlying Motion to Compel
(Doc. 41) in part and ordered Defendants to produce certain documents for an in
camera inspection by the Court. Upon receipt and a subsequent review of the
documents, the Court entered a Minute Order, finding
that the documents are confidential in nature, and do not
relate to the Plaintiff or his claims in this case. The
documents are not relevant and will not lead to relevant
evidence. The Defendant is not ordered to produce the
documents to the Plaintiff.
(Doc. 45, March 17, 2015, Minute Order, text entry.)

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of these prior Orders, apparently basing
the request on recently “produced documents and the availability of new evidence .
. .” (Doc. 47, at 3.) The Court, however, does not find any basis for
reconsideration in Plaintiff’s current motion. As stated above, the Court has
already granted Plaintiff’s request for an in camera review of the documents.
Defendants have submitted to the Court, and the Court has reviewed, the
documents at issue. The Court found the documents to be irrelevant to these
proceedings.
Regardless of what Plaintiff may contend it has gleaned from other recently
produced documents or newly presented evidence, the information in the
underlying documents has no bearing on Plaintiff’s claims or Defendants’
defenses. Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 47) is, therefore DENIED.1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 47) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 25th day of March, 2015.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE

KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge

1

While Defendants have yet to respond to Plaintiff’s motion – and the time to do
so has not expired – the Court finds a response to be unnecessary.