Osborn v. Haley et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 109 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 8/3/2011. cc:counsel (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CASE NO: 5:03-CV-192-TBR
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration (DN 109). Defendant has filed a response
(DN 110). Plaintiff has filed a reply (DN 112). For the reasons that follow, the motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly recognize a ‘motion for
reconsideration,’ those motions filed within ten days are generally treated as a motion to alter or
amend the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Cockrel v. Shelby County School Dist.,
270 F.3d 1036, 1047 (6th Cir. 2001)(citing 12 JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE'S FEDERAL
PRACTICE § 59.30 (3d ed.2000)); see also Moody v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., 915 F.2d
201, 206 (6th Cir. 1990) (“Motions for reconsideration of a judgment are construed as motions to
alter or amend the judgment”).
A court may grant a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) “if there is a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in
controlling law or to prevent manifest injustice.” GenCorp v. Am. Int’l, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th
Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). This remedy “is an extraordinary [one] and should be
used sparingly.” In re J & M Salupo Development Co., 388 B.R. 795, 800-01 (6th Cir. 2008). A
Rule 59(e) motion does not provide plaintiffs another opportunity to argue the merits of their
case. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff has essentially asked this Court to reevaluate the evidence presented during the
substitution hearing. As the standard makes clear, such a reevaluation is only appropriate if it
would “prevent manifest injustice.”
Plaintiff first asks this Court to add extra weight to the fact that Mr. Kuenzli testified that
Haley was “contentious, belligerent and uppity.” However, if Plaintiff is to be believed, that is
Haley’s normal demeanor and not indicative of his intention to have her fired following the
conversation. Similarly, his willingness to testify as to the facts he knows cannot be considered
evidence in favor of either party.1
The remainder of Plaintiff’s arguments generally take issue with the credibility of Ms.
Luber and Mr. Lisowsky, two witnesses at the hearing.2 This Court evaluated the testimony and
made credibility determinations when reaching the outcome of the original opinion, and a
reevaluation is not appropriate at this time.
It should also be noted that in an e-mail submitted by Plaintiff, Mr. Kuenzli declined to
testify if he did not have approval from his employer. DN 91, Exhibit 1, pg. 3.
Plaintiff takes issue with the characterization of Mr. Lisowsky as “the highest ranking
Forest Service member in the Land Between the Lakes area.” However, such was included only
to convey the factual background and relevancy of his testimony, not to imply that his testimony
was more important as a result of his rank.
Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a manifest injustice or meet one of the
requirements of Rule 59(e), the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
August 3, 2011
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?