Life Insurance Company of North America v. Ard et al
Filing
66
OPINION AND ORDER denying 48 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on March 3, 2015. (ES)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NORTH AMERICA
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14CV18-DCB-MTP
AMBER ARD, DIAMOND ARD, a minor,
DESTINY ARD, a minor, HEAVEN ARD, a minor,
JERRY ARD, and LEGWEN ARD
DEFENDANTS
AND
JERRY ARD AND LAGWEN ARD
CROSS-PLAINTIFFS/CROSSCOUNTER DEFENDANTS
v.
AMBER ARD, DIAMOND ARD, a minor,
CROSS-DEFENDANTS/CROSSDESTINY ARD, a minor, and HEAVEN ARD, a minor COUNTER PLAINTIFFS
OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion for Reconsideration [48], filed by
Defendants/Cross-Defendants/Cross-Counter Plaintiffs, Amber Ard, Diamond Ard, a minor, Destiny
Ard, a minor, and Heaven Ard, a minor, by and through their mother and natural guardian, Amber
Ard (“Movants”). Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and the applicable law,
the Court finds that the Motion for Reconsideration [48] should be denied.
Movants have requested that the Court reconsider its Order [45], granting an unopposed
motion to compel discovery pursuant to Local Uniform Civil Rule 7(b)(3)(E). See Motion to Compel
[11]. Specifically, the Court ordered Amber Ard to respond, without objection, to the interrogatories
and requests for production served by Defendants/Cross-Plaintiffs/Cross-Counter Defendants Jerry
Ard and LaGwen Ard. See Order [45]. In regard to the previous motion [11], Movants did not
1
respond within the time allotted by Local Rule 7(b)(4); in fact, Movants did not respond at all.
Movants now argue that the Court should reconsider its order granting the motion to compel
for two reasons. First, Movants state that Amber Ard was critically injured in an automobile accident
on January 14, 2015, two days after the Motion to Compel [11] was filed and the discovery deadline
in this case expired. See Motion [48] at 1; Case Management Order [20] at 3. Movants state that
they communicated this fact to opposing counsel, who acknowledged that Amber Ard would be
incapacitated for a period of time and indicated that he would proceed without discovery and file
a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 2.
Second, Movants argue that the discovery requests served by Jerry Ard and La Gwen Ard
are not relevant. See Motion [48] at 2. The record reflects that Movants have submitted responses
to only some of the discovery requests, contrary to the Court’s Order [45], which directed Amber
Ard to respond in full and without objection to the discovery requests. See Notices of Service of
Response [46] & [47]; Discovery Responses of Amber Ard [62-6].
Granting a motion for reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy,” and thus should be
“used sparingly.” In re Pequeno, 240 Fed. App'x 634, 636 (5th Cir.2007). Motions to reconsider are
not intended to “re-debate” the merits of a particular motion. W.C. Bulley v. Fidelity Financial Servs.
Of Miss., Inc., No. 3:00cv522–BN, 2000 WL 1349184, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 8, 2000). 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.” W.C. Bulley, 2000 WL 1349184,
at *2 (citations omitted). If one of these three grounds is not present, the court must deny the motion.
2
Movants have not alleged an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new
evidence not previously available, or the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent injustice.
Instead, Movants simply argue the merits of the previous motion to which they did not respond. Any
arguments challenging the merits and circumstances of the discovery requests should have been
raised within the time frame for opposition provided by the Local Rules.
The accident involving Amber Ard occurred after the January 12, 2015 discovery deadline
in this case had passed. The record reflects that the requests for discovery were served upon Amber
Ard on October 10, 2014. See Notice [36]. Movants have neglected to account for their failure to
timely respond to the discovery requests in the several months between the service of the requests
and the accident on January 14, 2015. In addition, Amber Ard has recently responded to portions
of the discovery requests at issue. See Notices of Service [46] & [47]; Discovery Responses of
Amber Ard [62-6]. For these reasons, the Court finds that the extraordinary remedy of
reconsideration is not warranted here. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
That the Motion for Reconsideration [48] is DENIED.
2.
That on or before March 13, 2015, Amber Ard shall respond to Defendant’s first set
of interrogatories and requests for production documents in full and without
objection.
3.
If Amber Ard fails to comply with this Order, the Court may impose sanctions
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 37.
SO ORDERED this the 3rd day of March, 2015.
s/ Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?