COOK v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Filing 99

ORDER denying 89 Motion for Reconsideration. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

JENNIE M. COOK,
Plaintiff,
v.
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:16-cv-00207-JCN

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its order on Plaintiff’s request to reopen
discovery. (Order, ECF No. 86.) In the Order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to reopen
discovery, but permitted her to supplement her expert witness designations given some
recently-disclosed information from Defendant. The Court, however, did not authorize
Plaintiff to designate any additional expert witnesses.
Through her motion, Plaintiff seeks the opportunity to re-designate two expert
witnesses whom Plaintiff had previously designated (Helen Watts, PE, Mike Garofalo),
but withdrawn. (Motion, ECF No. 89.) Plaintiff contends the re-designation is necessary
because her remaining expert might be unable to address adequately the recently-disclosed
information discussed in the Order.
Discussion
“Ordinarily, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate only if a moving party
presents newly discovered evidence, if there has been an intervening change in the law, or

if the moving party can demonstrate that the original decision was based on a manifest
error of law or was clearly unjust.” In re Hannaford Bros. Co. Customer Data Sec. Breach
Litig., 660 F. Supp. 2d 94, 97 (D. Me. 2009).
In this case, the gravamen of the parties’ dispute is the extent of the loss Plaintiff
experienced as the result of a fire that damaged her property in September 2013.

At the

time the Court issued the Order, the Court understood Plaintiff’s current expert (Bruce
Knowlton) had the expertise to testify as to the significance of the new information as it
relates to the relevant liability and damages issues in the case. Following a review of the
parties’ submissions on the motion for reconsideration and after consideration of the
information discussed during a telephonic conference with counsel on Plaintiff’s motion,
the Court continues to believe that the information did not materially alter the issues in the
case. In addition, on the current record, the Court is not convinced that Mr. Knowlton’s
ability to testify to the relevant issues was altered in any material way by the disclosure of
the new information. The Court, therefore, will not authorize Plaintiff to re-designate
additional expert witnesses for use in Plaintiff’s case-in-chief.
Plaintiff, however, should not be prejudiced by the late disclosure of the information.
Plaintiff would be prejudiced if the Court’s current understanding – that Mr. Knowlton has
the requisite expertise to testify as to the significance of the new information as it relates
to the relevant issues in the case – is erroneous. Because Defendant has represented that it
might challenge the ability of Plaintiff’s expert to testify to certain issues, the possibility
exists that Plaintiff could be prejudiced. Accordingly, the Court will allow Plaintiff to

2

revisit the issue should Defendant successfully challenge the ability of Mr. Knowlton to
testify about the significance of the new information to the relevant issues in the case.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration. Plaintiff, however, may ask the Court to revisit the expert witness issue
in accordance with this Order.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 28th day of September, 2018.

3