Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting, Inc. v. Dowell et al

Filing 273

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants/Counterclaim- Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Based on New Evidence [ECF No. 270] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Amend Case Management Order by Extending Deadline for Discovery [ECF No. 272] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on October 9, 2012. (MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CUSTOM HARDWARE ENGINEERING
& CONSULTING, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
vs.
JONATHAN D. DOWELL, et al.,

Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:10CV000653 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on “Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs’
(“Defendants”) Motion to Reconsider Based on New Evidence,” filed under seal [ECF No. 270],
and “Defendants’ Motion to Amend Case Management Order [Doc 234] by Extending Deadline
for Discovery” [ECF No. 272].
Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider revisits discovery disputes that have already required
considerable Court involvement, including telephone conferences, hearings on various motions,
the issuance of several Orders regarding compliance, and extensive in camera review of
numerous documents. The present Motion asks this Court to reconsider its July 7, 2011
Memorandum and Order [ECF No. 197], which denied Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration
of the Court’s May 5, 2011 Order, ruling that Plaintiffs would not be required to produce the
documents and materials submitted to the Court for its in camera review [ECF No. 189].
Defendants request relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), asserting “new
evidence has surfaced that satisfies the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ requirement of that rule.”
This Court does not agree that the exhibits submitted by Defendants in support of their Motion
establish exceptional circumstances that would justify the rule’s extraordinary remedy. See

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nat’l Park Med. Ctr., Inc., 413 F.3d 897, 903 (8th Cir. 2005). This
Court will deny Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider.
As noted in this Court’s September 28, 2012 Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiff
Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting, Inc,’s and Counterclaim-Defendant David York’s
Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 268], the record in this matter reveals a history of repeated and
lengthy discovery quarrels, the parties’ inability to cooperate and reach agreement, and the
absence of good faith attempts by the parties to informally resolve disputes, to the detriment of
their clients. This Court has advised the parties to attempt with more civility to resolve similar
discovery disputes through agreement or other means; however, the parties’ disregard for this
advice has served only to increase the cost of litigation and delay the progression of the action.
Such conduct has necessitated the amendment of the Court’s Case Management Order on four
occasions since the initiation of this litigation. No further delay will be tolerated.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Reconsider Based on New Evidence [ECF No. 270] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Amend Case Management
Order by Extending Deadline for Discovery [ECF No. 272] is DENIED.
Dated this

9th

day of October, 2012.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2