Center For Restorative Breast Surgery, L.L.C. et al v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana et al

Filing 715

ORDER denying 714 Motion for Reconsideration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs respond to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment by March 8, 2017. The Defendants may file a reply memorandum within seven days of the filing of Plaintiffs' opposition. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/2/2017. (cg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CENTER FOR RESTORATIVE
BREAST SURGERY, L.L.C., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 11-806

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD
OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.,
Defendants

SECTION: “E” (5)

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. 1 On February 15, 2016,
the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for additional discovery under Rule 56(d). 2 In
Plaintiffs’ motion, they ask the Court to reconsider its ruling under Rule 59(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure “must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present
newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and
should, have been made before the judgment issued.” 3 A motion for reconsideration,
however, “is ‘not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments
that could have been offered or raised before the entry of [the order].’” 4 “The Court is
mindful that ‘[r]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy
that should be used sparingly.’” 5 “When there exists no independent reason for

R. Doc. 714.
R. Doc. 713.
3 Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
4 Lacoste v. Pilgrim Int’l, No. 07-2904, 2009 WL 1565940, at *8 (E.D. La. June 3, 2009) (Vance, J.) (quoting
Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478–79 (5th Cir. 2004)).
5 Castrillo v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. 09-4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4 (alteration in
original) (quoting Templet, 367 F.3d at 479).
1

2

1

reconsideration other than mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a
waste of judicial time and resources and should not be granted.” 6
In deciding motions under the Rule 59(e) standards, the courts in this district have
considered the following factors:
(1) whether the movant demonstrates the motion is necessary to correct
manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based;
(2) whether the movant presents new evidence;
(3) whether the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest injustice;
and
(4) whether the motion is justified by an intervening change in the
controlling law. 7
In support of their motion for reconsideration, the Plaintiffs argue that
reconsideration of the Court’s order is necessary to correct manifest errors of law and fact.
Specifically, Plaintiffs argue the Court failed to consider “facts identified in the Plaintiffs
[sic] motion and attached affidavits.” 8
The arguments presented in the memorandum in support of Plaintiffs’ motion9
and the facts set forth in the attached affidavits of Dr. Frank DellaCroce, 10 Dr. Scott
Sullivan, 11 Sarah Underwood, 12 and Stephen George 13 all were considered by the Court
prior to its ruling. The Plaintiffs have presented no basis for the Court to reconsider its

6 Lightfoot v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 07-4833, 2012 WL 711842, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 5, 2012) (Brown,
J.).
7 Castrillo, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4. The Court notes that the time limits of Rule 59 do not apply in this
matter because the order appealed is interlocutory. Rules 59 and 60 set forth deadlines for seeking
reconsideration of final judgments. See Carter v. Farmers Rice Milling Co., Inc., 33 F. App’x 704 (5th Cir.
2002); Lightfoot, 2012 WL 711842, at *2.
8 R. Doc. 714-1 at 2.
9 R. Doc. 712-1.
10 R. Doc. 712-2.
11 R. Doc. 712-3.
12 R. Doc. 712-4.
13 R. Doc. 712-5.

2

prior ruling.
Denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for additional discovery under Rule 56(d) was
appropriate, the Court considered all facts provided by the Plaintiffs, and the Court
committed no error of law.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration 14 is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs respond to the Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment 15 by March 8, 2017. The Defendants may file a reply
memorandum within seven days of the filing of Plaintiffs’ opposition.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 2nd day of March, 2017.
______________________ _________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15

R. Doc. 714.
R. Doc. 709.

3