Jarrett-Cooper et al v. United Air Lines, Inc.

Filing 145

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 135 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RUTH JARRETT-COOPER, ET AL.,

No. 11-13674

Plaintiffs,

District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff

v.

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

UNITED AIR LINES, INC.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
On July 2, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration [Doc. #135] of my
June 24, 2013 order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery [Doc. #132]. I
ordered Defendant United Airlines, Inc. to file a response to this motion, which it did on
July 16, 2013 [Doc. #138]. Plaintiff filed a reply to the response on July 18, 2013 [Doc.
#139].
Motions for reconsideration are subject to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3), which
provides:
“(3) Grounds. 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 have been misled but also show
that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.”
Having revisited my previous order and reviewed the pleadings, I am of the view
that Plaintiff has not met the demanding standard of L.R. 7.1(g)(3) in that she has not
demonstrated a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled, or

-1-

that correcting any defect would result in a different disposition of the original motion.1
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. #135] is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated September 30, 2013

s/ R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on
September 30, 2013, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager to the
Honorable R. Steven Whalen

1

I disagree that a motion for reconsideration of a Magistrate Judge’s order must
necessarily be addressed to the District Judge. The judicial officer who enters an order–in
this case, a Magistrate Judge–may correct errors in his or her own order under the
purview of the Local Rules, where a timely motion for reconsideration is filed. Once
reconsideration is denied (or for that matter, granted) by the Magistrate Judge, the nonprevailing party may then file objections with the District Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A).
-2-