Seales v. Detroit, City of et al

Filing 140

ORDER Granting 130 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)

Case 4:12-cv-11679-GAD-DRG ECF No. 140 filed 07/18/18

PageID.1068

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARVIN SEALES,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-cv-11679

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

THOMAS ZBERKOT,
Defendant.
______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING WAYNE COUNTY’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [#130]
Trial in this matter commenced on July 17, 2018. On July 16, 2018, this
Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Motion to Show
Cause [#128] on non-party Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office (“Wayne County”).
Dkt. No. 129. That same day, Wayne County filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
Dkt. No. 130.
Under this Court’s Local Rules, the Court may not grant a motion for
reconsideration that merely presents the same issues upon which the Court already
ruled. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3) (E.D. Mich. July 1, 2013). Additionally, the movant
must demonstrate that there is a palpable defect in the opinion or order under attack
and that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. Id.;
Indah v. U.S. S.E.C., 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir. 2011). “A ‘palpable defect’ is a
-1-

Case 4:12-cv-11679-GAD-DRG ECF No. 140 filed 07/18/18

PageID.1069

Page 2 of 3

defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Hawkins v.
Genesys Health Sys., 704 F. Supp. 2d 688, 709 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (quoting Ososki
v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F. Supp. 2d 714, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2001)).
Further, a motion for reconsideration is not a proper vehicle to advance positions
that a party could have argued earlier but did not. Smith v. Mount Pleasant Schs.,
298 F. Supp. 2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (citing Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)).
Non-party Wayne County was in the process of drafting a response to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Motion to Show Cause when this Court issued its
July 16, 2018 order granting the Motion. Dkt. No. 130, pg. 6 (Pg. ID 1042). In its
Motion for Reconsideration, Wayne County asserts that Plaintiff sent a subpoena
directly to the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, instead of to Wayne County’s
Corporation Counsel on July 11, 2018. Id. at pg. 5 (Pg. ID 1041). Therefore,
Corporation Counsel for Wayne County did not learn of the subpoena or the
Motion to Compel until July 16, 2018. Id. at pg. 6 (Pg. ID 1042).
Wayne County further states that Plaintiff did not seek concurrence from
Wayne County before filing its Motion to Compel and Motion to Show Cause. Id.
at pg. 7 (Pg. ID 1043). Additionally, Plaintiff’s subpoena came over two years after
the discovery cut-off date and only one week before trial, giving Wayne County
insufficient time to respond. Id. at pgs. 7–8 (Pg. ID 1043–44). In its prior Motion
-2-

Case 4:12-cv-11679-GAD-DRG ECF No. 140 filed 07/18/18

PageID.1070

Page 3 of 3

[#128], Plaintiff also failed to explain why the redactions included in the
documents Wayne County has already provided are inappropriate. Id. at pg. 8 (Pg.
ID 1044).
Accordingly, this Court will grant Wayne County’s Motion for
Reconsideration [#130]. Wayne County is not required to furnish any materials not
previously furnished, nor is it required to un-redact any materials previously
provided to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

July 18, 2018
s/Gershwin A. Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge

-3-