Williams et al v. Hargrove et al

Filing 315

ORDER denying 305 Motion for Reconsideration re 243 Order on Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 3/16/2018 (srd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THEODORE WILLIAMS et al.
v.

PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-266-KS-MTP

GARY HARGROVE et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Reconsider [305] filed by Plaintiffs. After
considering the submissions of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that
this motion is not well taken and should be denied.
Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its previous Order [243] excluding their expert, Dr.
Richard Campbell. “A motion asking the court to reconsider a prior ruling is evaluated . . . as a
motion . . . under Rule 59(e) . . . [when] filed within twenty-eight days after the entry of judgment
. . . .” Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n.2 (5th Cir. 2012). This motion was
filed within twenty-eight days of the Court’s issuance of its Order [243] and is therefore analyzed
under Rule 59(e).
“A Rule 59(e) motion calls into question the correctness of a judgment.” Templet v.
Hydrochem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004). There are three grounds for altering or
amending a judgment under Rule 59(e): “(1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the
availability of new evidence not previously available, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law
or prevent manifest injustice.” Williamson Pounders Architects, P.C. v. Tunica Cnty., Miss., 681
F.Supp.2d 766, 767 (N.D. Miss. 2008). Rule 59(e) motions are “not the proper vehicle for
rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the
entry of judgment,” Templet, 367 F.3d at 478, and they “should not be used to . . . re-urge matters

that have already been advanced by a party.” Nationalist Movement v. Town of Jena, 321 F.App’x
359, 364 (5th Cir. 2009). Reconsideration of a previous order is “an extraordinary remedy that
should be used sparingly.” Id. Before filing a Rule 59(e) motion, parties “should evaluate whether
what may seem to be a clear error of law is in fact simply a point of disagreement” with the Court.
Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990).
Plaintiffs contend that the Court should evaluate their motion under the more permissive
rubric of Rule 54(b), which allows the Court to revise any ruling “that adjudicates fewer than all
the claim or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . . at any time . . . .” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54(b). Under this rule, the Court has discretion to alter any ruling “for any reason it deems
sufficient.” United States v. Renda, 709 F.3d 472, 479 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Saqui v. Pride
Cent. Am., LLC, 595 F.3d 206, 210-11 (5th Cir. 2010). Regardless of which standard applies,
Plaintiffs’ motion must fail.
First, under a Rule 59(e) analysis, Plaintiffs have failed to identify a change of law, new
evidence, or a need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. See Williamson,
681 F.Supp.2d at 767. All the arguments raised in their motion are either arguments that were
previously raised or arguments that could have been previously raised, neither of which are the
correct basis for a motion to reconsider. See Nationalist Movement, 321 F.App’x at 364, Templet,
367 F.3d at 478.
Second, the Court does not find that any of the reasons advanced by Plaintiffs in their
motion is “sufficient” to alter its ruling under Rule 54(b). See Renda, 709 F.3d at 479 (quoting
Saqui, 595 F.3d at 210-11). After the initial briefing of the motion to exclude Dr. Campbell, the
Court held an extensive Daubert hearing and allowed for additional briefing from both sides. The
Court carefully considered everything presented to it on the record and ultimately found that Dr.

2

Campbell’s expert testimony was not sufficient under either Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or the
standards of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125
L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Though the Court appreciates that Plaintiffs disagree with its rulings, the
Court does not find that the reasons presented to it in Plaintiffs’ motion are sufficient to merit
reconsideration. Therefore, the Motion to Reconsider [305] must be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Reconsider [305]
is denied.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, on this, the 16th day of March, 2018.

s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3