Weinstein v. UGS Corporation

Filing 183

ORDER denying 176 Motion for Reconsideration re 153 Order on Motion in Limine, 154 Order on Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Paul D Borman. (DGoo)

Weinstein v. UGS Corporation

Doc. 183

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION GARY WEINSTEIN, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of JUDITH WEINSTEIN, as Representative of the Estate of ALEXANDER WEINSTEIN, and as Representative of the Estate of SAMUEL WEINSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SIEMENS, fka UGS CORP., Defendant. _______________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SIEMENS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1 AND 2 TO EXCLUDE TOM WELLINGER'S DRINKING HISTORY AND CONDUCT AT UGS PRIOR TO MAY 3, 2005 (DKT. NO. 176) This matter is before the Court on Defendant Siemens, fka UGS Corp.'s ("Siemens") motion for reconsideration of this Court's November 17, 2010 Orders denying Siemens' motions in limine Nos. 1 and 2 (Dkt. Nos. 153, 154). (Dkt. No. 176.) For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Siemens' motion for reconsideration. I. BACKGROUND On November 17, 2010, this Court issued an Opinion and Order Denying UGS Corporation's Motion In Limine No. 1 To Exclude Tom Wellinger's Drinking History (Dkt. No. 154). On that same date, this Court issued an Opinion and Order Denying UGS Corporation's Motion In Limine No. 2 To Exclude Testimony Concerning Tom Wellinger's Behavior at UGS Prior to May 3, 2005 (Dkt. No. 153). Siemens moves the Court to reconsider these two rulings, asserting that the Court's decision is based on a palpable defect for failure to consider the decision of the Michigan Supreme Case No. 2:07-CV-15000 Paul D. Borman United States District Judge

Dockets.Justia.com

Court in Brown v. Brown, 478 Mich. 545 (2007). II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Motions for reconsideration are governed by E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3), which states in pertinent part: Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, the court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). "A `palpable defect' is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain." Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F. Supp.2d 714, 718 (E.D. Mich.2001). III. ANALYSIS This Court carefully considered the opinion of the Michigan Supreme Court in Brown, both in its recent November 17, 2010 rulings on Siemens' motions in limine and in its earlier ruling on Siemens' motion for summary judgment, and has also considered the Michigan Supreme Court's opinion in Hersh v. Kentfield Builders, Inc., 385 Mich. 410 (1971).1 Siemens' motion for reconsideration "merely present[s] the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication," in its rulings on Siemens motions in limine Nos. 1 and 2. Siemens has failed to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled.

In its brief, Siemens cites to the Michigan Court of Appeals decision in Hersh v. Kentfield Builders, Inc., 19 Mich. App. 43 (1969), which was reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court as cited above. 2

1

IV.

CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court DENIES Siemens' Motion for Reconsideration on Its Motions In

Limine Nos. 1 and 2 To Exclude Tom Wellinger's Drinking History and Conduct at UGS Prior to May 3, 2005 (Dkt. No. 176.) IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Paul D. Borman PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: December 6, 2010 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on December 6, 2010.

S/Denise Goodine Case Manager

3