In Re: In the Matter of Tara Crosby LLC
Filing
205
ORDER AND REASONS: DENYING 198 Motion for Reconsideration, as state herein. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 3/18/2020. (am)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN THE MATTER OF TARA CROSBY,
L.L.C. AND CROSBY TUGS, L.L.C.,
AS THE OWNERS AND OWNERS PRO
HAC VICE OF THE M/V CROSBY
COMMANDER AND HER CARGO,
ENGINES, TACKLE, GEAR
APPURTENANCES, ETC., IN REM,
PETITIONING FOR THE
EXONERATION FROM AND/OR
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 17-5391
SECTION M (4)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a motion by Tetra Technologies, Inc. to reconsider1 this Court’s
February 10, 2020 Order granting a motion in limine by claimants Robert Pitre and Joseph
Hebert (collectively, “Claimants”) to exclude all evidence, argument, and questioning
concerning Hebert’s supposed pre-accident substance abuse issues because such matters are
irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial.2 Tetra argues that it should be permitted to use such evidence
for impeachment because Hebert denied pre-accident drug addiction during his deposition.3
Crosby Tugs, LLC and Tara Crosby, LLC (collectively, “Crosby”) join in Tetra’s motion.4
Claimants respond in opposition.5 Having considered the parties’ memoranda, the record, and
the applicable law, the Court finds that reconsideration of the challenged Order is unwarranted.
This Court’s February 10, 2020 Order was an interlocutory order addressing pretrial
issues. Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states in pertinent part:
[A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all
the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the
1
R. Doc. 198.
R. Doc. 197.
3
R. Doc. 198-1 at 1-3.
4
R. Doc. 204.
5
R. Doc. 200.
2
action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the
entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and
liabilities.
Under this rule, the district court “possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind,
or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient.” Melancon v. Texaco, Inc.,
659 F.2d 551, 553 (5th Cir. 1981).
However, the district court must exercise this broad
discretion sparingly to forestall the perpetual reexamination of orders and the resulting burdens
and delays. See Calpecto 1981 v. Marshall Expl., Inc., 989 F.2d 1408, 1414-15 (5th Cir. 1993);
18B CHARLES A. WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 4478.1
(3d ed. 2019).
The general practice in this district has been to evaluate motions to reconsider
interlocutory orders under the same standards that apply to motions to alter or amend final
judgments made pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Castrillo v.
Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 2010 WL 1434398, at *3-4 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2010); Rosemond
v. AIG Ins., 2009 WL 1211020, at *2 (E.D. La. May 4, 2009); In re Katrina Canal Breaches,
2009 WL 1046016, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 16, 2009). A Rule 59(e) motion calls into question the
correctness of a judgment. In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002).
“Rule 59(e) is properly invoked to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” Id. at 581. Manifest error is error that “is plain and indisputable, and that
amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law.” Crain v. Schlumberger Tech. Co., 2016
WL 4508335, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 29, 2016) (citation omitted). “A Rule 59(e) motion should
not be used to relitigate prior matters that should have been urged earlier or that simply have
been resolved to the movant’s dissatisfaction.” In re Self, 172 F. Supp. 2d 813, 816 (W.D. La.
2001). The grant of such a motion is an “extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.”
2
Indep. Coca-Cola Employees’ Union of Lake Charles, No. 1060 v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
United, Inc., 114 F. App’x 137, 143 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
The Court is not persuaded that reconsideration is warranted. Tetra did not demonstrate
that the Court’s decision to exclude evidence of Hebert’s prior substance abuse as irrelevant and
more prejudicial than probative rested on any manifest error of law or fact or that reconsideration
is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. It is undisputed that drugs played no part in the
accident, so Hebert’s prior substance abuse is irrelevant to any issue concerning the casualty.
Under the balancing test of Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Hebert’s doubtful
response to a single deposition question should not open the door, for sake of impeachment, to
this prejudicial line of inquiry. Further, Tetra could have raised its present argument regarding
impeachment in response to Claimant’s original motion in limine but it did not. Rule 59 is not
the proper vehicle to raise arguments that could, and should, have been raised earlier.6
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Tetra’s motion to reconsider (R. Doc. 198) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of March, 2020.
________________________________
BARRY W. ASHE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
To be sure, because Tetra did not join in Crosby’s opposition to Claimants’ original motion in limine,
Tetra likely waived any right to seek reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on the motion. Nevertheless, because
Crosby joined in Tetra’s motion to reconsider, the Court has weighed the merits of its motion.
3
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?