Contract Design Group, Incorporated et al v. Wayne State University et al
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 149 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiffs. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (Monda, H)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
CONTRACT DESIGN GROUP, INC., and
Case No: 10-14702
Hon. Victoria A. Roberts
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, THE WAYNE
STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS,
JAMES R. SEARS, JOAN M. GOSSMAN, and
JOHN L. DAVIS,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 149)
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of this
Court’s Ruling That the March 15, 2010 Letter From the State Of Michigan Wage &
Hour Division was Inadmissible, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(h).
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
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3).
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.
In the June 19, 2013 hearing on motions in limine, the Court denied Plaintiffs’
motion in limine to take judicial notice that the Wage and Hour Division of the Michigan
Department of Labor & Economic Growth determined in a letter that the Prevailing
Wage and Projects Act, P.A. 166 of 1965 did not apply to Plaintiffs’ engagement of
Raymond Williams d/b/a/ Williams Custom Carpet on Wayne State University’s
construction project. The Court further ruled that the letter was inadmissible under
Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
However, the admissibility of the letter was not at issue in a motion before the
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. The Court’s refusal to take judicial notice stands; but, its ruling on
the admissibility of the letter is vacated. Defendants may present their admissibility
objection at trial.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: June 21, 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 21, 2013.
S/Carol A. Pinegar
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?