Contract Design Group, Incorporated et al v. Wayne State University et al

Filing 134

ORDER denying 127 MOTION for Reconsideration re 126 Order, 125 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Wayne State University Board of Governors, Wayne State University, John L Davis, James R Sears, Joan M Gossman. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (Monda, H)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CONTRACT DESIGN GROUP, INC., and
ROBERT MURRAY,
Plaintiffs,

Case No: 10-14702

v.

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, THE WAYNE
STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS,
JAMES R. SEARS, JOAN M. GOSSMAN, and
JOHN L. DAVIS,

Defendants.
/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 127)
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of this
Court’s Amended Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(h)(3).
Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) provides the Court's standard of review:
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. LR 7.1(h)(3).

1

Palpable defects are those which are "obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or
plain." Mich. Dep't of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
"It is an exception to the norm for the Court to grant a motion for reconsideration."
Maiberger v. City of Livonia, 724 F. Supp. 2d 759, 780 (E.D. Mich. 2010). "[A]bsent a
significant error that changes the outcome of a ruling on a motion, the Court will not
provide a party with an opportunity to relitigate issues already decided." Id.
Defendants’ arguments do not demonstrate palpable defects which if corrected
would result in a different disposition of the Court’s order granting in part and denying in
part summary judgment.
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: June 6, 2013
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on
June 6, 2013.
S/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

2