Tyree v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 26 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on October 19, 2011. (Cochran, Ronald)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
DEBORAH TYREE

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-32-KS-MTP

THE HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY and WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s [26] Motion to Reconsider the order [25] entered
September 15, 2011 denying her [16] motion to conduct discovery in this ERISA case. Having
reviewed the motion and the [28] response, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the
Court finds that the motion is not well taken and should be denied.
This Court has “considerable discretion” in deciding whether to grant a motion for
reconsideration. See Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir.
1993). Still, granting a motion for reconsideration “is an extraordinary remedy and should be
used sparingly.” In re Pequeno, 240 F. App’x 634, 636 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Templet v.
HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir. 2004)).
A motion to reconsider is not “intended to give an unhappy litigant one additional chance
to sway the judge[,]” McDonald, 2005 WL 1528611, at *1 (citation omitted), and its purpose “is
not to re-debate the merits of a particular motion.” W. C. Bulley v. Fidelity Financial Services of
Mississippi, Inc., 2000 WL 1349184, at *3 (S.D. Miss. 2000). Indeed, “[i]f a party is allowed to
address a court’s reasons as to why a motion was or was not granted, it would render the entire

1

briefing process irrelevant and lead to endless motions to reconsider.” Id. There are only three
grounds for which this Court may grant a motion for reconsideration: “(1) an intervening change
in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available, and (3) the need
to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. at *2 (citations omitted). If one
of these grounds is not present, the Court must deny the motion. Id. at *3.
In the instant case, none of these grounds is present. Plaintiff’s motion is nothing more
than a second bite at the apple and goes far beyond the scope of permissible discovery in ERISA
cases. The issues raised were discussed thoroughly in the Court’s prior [25] order.
Reconsideration is not warranted.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s [26] Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this the 19th day of October, 2011.
s/ Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge

2