Dziuba v. Smith

Filing 31

ORDER Denying Defendant's 30 Motion for Reconsideration or for Clarification. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (SBur)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Bernard Dziuba,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-10869
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge

Shane Smith,
Mag. Judge Patricia T. Morris
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OR FOR CLARIFICATION [30]
On July 20, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order denying
without prejudice plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the
results of preliminary breath test and breathalyzer results from the
arrest that is the subject of this lawsuit. (Dkt. 29 at 12-14.) Defendant
did not provide a reason for the introduction of the results in his
briefing. The Court stated that “[i]f plaintiff’s degree of intoxication
comes into question during trial, defendant may raise the issue of
introducing the specific results of the administered tests outside the

hearing of the jury, at which point the Court will hear plaintiff’s
objections and rule on their admission.” (Id. at 14.)
Defendant now moves for clarifications or to have the Court
reconsider that holding, and make the determination that the results
are admissible at trial.

(Dkt. 30.)

To prevail on a motion for

reconsideration under Local Rule 7.1, a 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. LR 7.1(h)(3). “A palpable defect is a defect that
is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.” Witzke v. Hiller, 972
F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997). The “palpable defect” standard is
consistent with the standard for amending or altering a judgment under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Schs., 469 F.3d
479, 496 (6th Cir. 2006).

Motions for reconsideration should not be

granted if they “merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court,
either expressly or by reasonable implication.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3).
But “parties cannot use a motion for reconsideration to raise new legal
arguments that could have been raised before a judgment was issued.”
2

Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publ’g, 477 F.3d 383, 395 (6th
Cir. 2007).
Defendant’s motion is procedurally inappropriate, because the
order on the motion in limine led to no disposition of the case, and
nothing in the motion could lead to a different disposition of the case at
this point. Further, it presents the same issue already ruled on by the
Court, and challenges a ruling that still permits defendant to argue for
the inclusion of evidence at trial.

Accordingly, the motion for

reconsideration or for clarification (Dkt. 30) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 31, 2017
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 31, 2017.
s/Shawna Burns
SHAWNA BURNS
Case Manager

3