Moody et al v. Michigan Gaming Control Board et al
Filing
234
OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' 229 MOTION for Reconsideration re 227 Memorandum Opinion & Order Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN MOODY, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 12-cv-13593
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
MICHIGAN GAMING CONTROL
BOARD, ET AL.,
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION [#229]
I. INTRODUCTION
On January 29, 2019, this Court entered an Opinion and Order Denying
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. Dkt. No. 227. Plaintiffs sought, among other things,
certain discovery materials that the Court previously ruled were protected by
privilege.
The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion, in part, because it found
Defendants had no continuing duty to supplement its discovery disclosures with
materials the Court already ruled were protected by privilege. That decision is the
subject of the instant Motion.
-1-
Present before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration of
the Court’s January 29, 2019 Opinion and Order. Dkt. No. 229. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court will Deny Plaintiffs’ Motion [#229].
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Local Rule 7.1(h) governs motions for reconsideration. Under this rule, the
Court generally may not grant a motion for reconsideration that merely presents
the same issues upon which the Court already ruled. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3).
Rather, the movant must demonstrate that there is a palpable defect in the Court’s
order and that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.
Id.
“A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable,
manifest, or plain.” Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F. Supp. 2d 714,
718 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
III. DISCUSSION
The primary basis for Plaintiffs’ Motion appears to be a challenge to the
Court’s interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e).
Rule 26(e)
discusses the requirements surrounding supplementing discovery disclosures and
provides, in relevant part, the following:
A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a)—or who has responded
to an interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission—must
supplement or correct its disclosure or response in a timely manner if the
party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is
incomplete or incorrect.
-2-
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A).
The Court previously held that Defendants’
disclosures surrounding certain investigative records were not incomplete or
incorrect because the Court had already ruled those records were protected by
privilege.
Hence, Defendants had no duty to supplement these disclosures.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that to the extent Plaintiffs were attempting to
reopen discovery to relitigate the issue of privilege, there was no good cause to do
so at this late stage of the case.
As demonstrated above, the Court’s January 29, 2019 Opinion and Order
squarely addressed the same arguments that Plaintiffs raise now. See Smith ex rel.
Smith v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Sch., 298 F. Supp. 2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich. 2003)
(“[A] motion for reconsideration is not properly used as a vehicle to re-hash old
arguments or to advance positions that could have been argued earlier but were
not.). Because the Court finds no palpable defects in its reasoning or conclusions,
Plaintiffs’ Motion will be Denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court will DENY Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Partial Reconsideration of the Court’s January 29, 2019 Opinion and Order [#229].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 19, 2019
s/Gershwin A. Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge
-3-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys
of record on this date, March 19, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Teresa McGovern
Case Manager
-4-
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?