Jarrett-Cooper et al v. United Air Lines, Inc.
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 135 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (MWil)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
RUTH JARRETT-COOPER, ET AL.,
District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
UNITED AIR LINES, INC.,
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.
Motions for reconsideration are subject to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3), which
“(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
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.
Case Manager to the
Honorable R. Steven Whalen
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. §
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?