Kesler Associates, Inc. v. Wellman Plastics Recycling, LLC

Filing 66

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 65 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KESLER ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 10-CV-13390
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.
WELLMAN PLASTICS RECYCLING, LLC,
Defendant.
/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff asks that the Court
reconsider its January 24, 2013 Order, granting in part and denying in part Objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Order. The Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s order requiring Plaintiff to
produce sales documents from April 2011 until December 2011. The Court granted Defendant’s
request to exclude specification numbers due to expense and time. Defendant indicated that such
information had not been provided before. Plaintiff now asks the Court to require production of
documents until December 31, 2012 so that its accountant is able to prepare reliable damage
summaries for trial.1
Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h) allows a party to file a motion for
reconsideration within 14 days after entry of judgment or order. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(1). No
response or oral argument is allowed unless the Court orders otherwise. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7(h)(2).

1

On February 21, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an emailed addressed to the undersigned.
The email was not docketed and there is no indication that opposing counsel was copied. The
Court notes that ex parte communication is not appropriate under the Local Rules or the Rules of
Civil Procedure. The Court reminds counsel that any requests for action by the Court must be
submitted through the proper public channels pursuant to the Local Rules and the Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1(h)(3) “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.” A motion for reconsideration is only proper if the movant shows that the court and the
parties were misled by a “palpable defect.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A “palpable defect” is a
“defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Olson v. The Home Depot, 321
F.Supp.2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich. 2004). The movant must also demonstrate that the disposition of
the case would be different if the palpable defect were cured. E. D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). Plaintiff’s
motion is timely and the Court will not require a response or oral argument on this matter.
In its objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order, Plaintiff asked for sales documents “up to
today and . . . ongoing as opposed to arbitrarily cutting off in December 2011.” [Docket No. 56,
November 6, 2012] Plaintiff now asks for sales records from April 2012 through December 2012
with specification numbers.2 Plaintiff further indicates that specification numbers would not impose
a great time or financial burden on Defendant because there are only 18 customers and one
specification number per customer. Plaintiff notes that it agreed to withdraw eleven motions to
compel in exchange for Defendant producing sales documents with specification numbers from
April 2011 until December 31, 2012. Plaintiff contends that the production of sales documents from
April 2011 until December 31, 2012 with specification numbers would not only honor the parties’
bargain but save considerable time during trial. The Court finds that there is no palpable defect.

2

Plaintiff then notes that Defendants are under order to include the specification numbers
for the period of April 2011 until December 2011. However, the Court overruled the Magistrate
Judge’s finding as to this point and did not require Defendant to provide specification numbers
due to expense and time involved.
2

Plaintiff simply raises issues that were already considered by the Court. The Court will not
reconsider them here.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Docket No. 65, filed January
30, 2013] is DENIED.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: April 2, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on April
2, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3