Beauvais v. City of Inkster et al

Filing 64

ORDER Denying 62 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SUSAN BEAUVAIS,

Case No. 16-cv-12814

Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

v.
CITY OF INKSTER,

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS

Defendant.
__________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [62]
On December 27, 2017, Plaintiff Susan Beauvais moved to strike Dr. Harvey
Ager from Defendant City of Inkster’s Witness List. Dkt. No. 42. The Court denied
Beauvais’s motion in an Opinion and Order dated February 8, 2018. See Dkt. No.
61.
Then, on February 15, 2018, Beauvais moved for reconsideration of that
decision. Dkt. No. 62. The Court has not ordered a response to the motion or oral
argument. See E.D. MICH. L.R. 7.1(h)(2).
Presently before the Court is Beauvais’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s February 8, 2018 Opinion and Order Denying her Motion to Strike Dr.
Harvey Ager from the City of Inkster’s Witness List [62]. For the reasons detailed
below, the Court will DENY Beauvais’s Motion for Reconsideration.

I.

Discussion
Beauvais’s Motion for Reconsideration requires the Court to decide whether

Dr. Harvey Ager was “retained or specially employed” by the City of Inkster to
testify here as an expert. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B). If he was, then he was
required to file an expert report. See id. Because he has not filed an expert report,
Beauvais maintains the Court must strike him as a witness. The Court previously
held Dr. Ager was not “retained or specially employed” by the City to testify as an
expert, and accordingly, that he did not have to file an expert report. See Dkt. No.
61, pp. 7–10 (Pg. ID 3044–47). As that finding was not clear or palpable error, the
Court will deny Beauvais’s Motion for Reconsideration.
A.

Motion for Reconsideration

Beauvais unsuccessfully moves under Eastern District of Michigan Local
Rule 7.1(h) for reconsideration of the Court’s February 8, 2018 Opinion and Order.
First, the Local Rules provide that:
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. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is ‘a defect that is obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest or plain.’ ” United States v. Furnari, 73 F. Supp. 3d 877,
2

888 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (quoting United States v. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d 682, 684
(E.D. Mich. 2004)).
Beauvais’s Motion for Reconsideration fails because she solely reiterates
arguments raised in her Motion to Strike; and specifically, arguments that the Court
has explicitly rejected. For example, she argues here—just as in her Motion to
Strike—that Dr. Ager was “retained or specially employed” to testify as an expert.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B). According to Beauvais, it follows then that Dr. Ager
was required to submit an expert report and should be struck as a witness for not
doing so. See id. In its February 8, 2018 Opinion and Order, however, the Court
rejected this argument. The Court concluded the City hired Dr. Ager in April 2015
to evaluate whether Beauvais was fit to return to work, not for any litigation purpose.
And more generally, the Court found that the parties were not even contemplating
litigation in April 2015. Indeed, the Complaint was not filed until August 2016. See
Dkt. No. 1. Through her Motion for Reconsideration, then, Beauvais merely
presents issues already decided by the Court, and tellingly, cites to no authority in
restating these arguments.
Beauvais offers a second unpersuasive contention in her reconsideration
motion. She had previously asked the Court to compel Dr. Ager to comply with a
subpoena, and here, claims the Court failed to address this request. Dkt. No. 62, p.
3 (Pg. ID 3056). Beauvais is mistaken. The Court explicitly denied this request in
3

its February 8, 2018 Opinion and Order. See Dkt. No. 61, p. 2 n.2. Accordingly,
Beauvais’s reconsideration motion lacks merit.
II.

Conclusion
Plaintiff has requested reconsideration of the Court’s February 8, 2018

Opinion and Order Denying her Motion to Strike Dr. Harvey Ager as a Witness. See
Dkt. Nos. 61, 62. As Beauvais only raises arguments explicitly rejected by the Court
in that Opinion, the Court will DENY her Motion for Reconsideration [62].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 21, 2018

/s/Gershwin A. Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
March 21, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
/s/ Tanya Bankston
Deputy Clerk

4