Mowett v. Auto Owners Insurance Company et al
OPINION AND ORDER denying 34 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 15-14166
AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. #34.)
Defendant has not filed a response, but after reviewing the brief, the court deems that
none is necessary. Subject to the court’s discretion, a motion for reconsideration shall
be granted only if the movant “demonstrate[s] a palpable defect by which the court and
the parties . . . have been misled” and “show[s] that correcting the defect will result in a
different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is ‘a
defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.’” Buchanan v. Metz, 6 F.
Supp. 3d 730, 752 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (quoting United States v. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d
682, 684 (E.D. Mich. 2004)). The court “will not grant motions for . . . reconsideration
that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3).
Plaintiff argues that the court should reconsider its earlier grant of dismissal as a
sanction for failure to comply with the court’s orders regarding his discovery obligations,
(Dkt. #32), on the basis that Defendant did not truly attempt to resolve discovery
disputes in good faith, that Defendant made unspecified “grossly erroneous
assumptions to the court[,]” that Plaintiff struggled to communicate with opposing
counsel, that Plaintiff is “not aware if local counsel was present” at a status conference
in November, that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the December 19th deadline was
really the result of a technical failure, and that he suffered from medical problems
resulting in “sudden and necessary medical procedures” which “negatively affected
Plaintiff in the months of November and December[,]” (Dkt. #34, Pg. ID 240-41).
None of the above items identify a palpable defect in the court’s order, the
correction of which would result in a different resolution of the case. Most of the items
“merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court.” See E.D. Mich. L.R.
7.1(h)(3). The court sympathizes with Plaintiff’s medical problems, but it began
threatening dismissal as a sanction in September for misconduct which occurred as
early as June, before Plaintiff’s illness emerged, (See Dkt. #24). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #34) is DENIED.
S/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 23, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, March 23, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
3/23/17:S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\15-14166.MOWETT.Reconsideration.bss.wpd
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?