Ribeiro et al v. Baby Trend, Inc.

Filing 734

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that defendant Baby Trend's motion to reconsider, Filing No. 578 , is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

FRANCO RIBEIRO, as individuals and as
next friends and biological parents of
Lucas Ribeiro, an infant; and DEANNA
RIBEIRO, as individuals and as next
friends and biological parents of Lucas
Ribeiro, an infant;

8:12CV204
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
BABY TREND, INC., a corporation; MARK
SEDLACK, MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT
CORP., INDIANA MILLS &
MANUFACTURING INC., LERADO
GROUP CO., LTD., LERADO GROUP
(HOLDING) COMPANY, LTD., LERADO
(ZHONG SHAN) INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.,
LERADO CHINA LIMITED, LERADO H.K.
LIMITED, MAXI MILIAAN B.V., and
DOREL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Baby Trend Inc.’s, Mark Sedlack’s, and
Millenium Development Corp.'s (collectively, “Baby Trend”) motion to reconsider, Filing
No. 578, this court’s order, Filing No. 541, on the plaintiff’s objection, Filing No. 524, to
the magistrate judge’s order, Filing No. 517, on the plaintiff’s motion to compel
depositions, Filing No. 469, and the defendants' motions to quash and modify
depositions, Filing Nos. 474 and 485.
A “motion to reconsider” is not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 168 (8th Cir. 1988).

Thus,

“[f]ederal courts have construed this type of motion as arising under either Rule 59(e)

(motion to alter or amend the judgment) or Rule 60 (b) (relief from judgment for mistake
or other reason).” Id. “A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to
grant or deny a [motion to reconsider]” regardless of whether the party moves under
Rule 60(b) or Rule 59(e). United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930,
933 (8th Cir. 2006). In civil cases, a motion for reconsideration serves the limited
function of correcting manifest errors of law or presenting newly discovered evidence.
United States v. Luger, 837 F.3d 870, 875 (8th Cir. 2016). A motion for reconsideration
should not be used as a vehicle to present evidence that was available when the matter
was initially adjudicated. Julianello v. K-V Pharm. Co., 791 F.3d 915, 922 (8th Cir.
2015) (noting that the inquiry is narrow); Anthony v. Runyon, 76 F.3d 210, 215 (8th Cir.
1996) (evidence presented on a motion for reconsideration “must be truly new, in the
sense that it was previously unavailable”).
Baby Trend contends the circumstances pertaining to this court’s order dated
November 17, 2016, sustaining the plaintiffs’ objections to the magistrate judge’s order
changed on January 13, 2017, when the plaintiffs disclosed an additional expert, and an
additional ten non-retained expert witnesses to testify at trial. In response to Baby
Trend’s motion, the plaintiffs agreed to allow Baby Trend to depose all of their retained
experts.

Plaintiffs objected, however, to Baby Trend's request to increase the

deposition limit to depose eleven non-retained experts as well.1

1

The plaintiffs state that two of the eleven non-retained experts are plaintiff Lucas Ribeiro's
elementary school teachers and that their school records have been produced to defendants. Further,
they state that the other nine non-retained experts are medical professionals whose identity has been
known to defendants since early in the litigation and their medical records on Lucas Ribeiro have been
produced. The plaintiffs have stipulated to the foundation of those records. Also, plaintiffs have disclosed
that these professionals will only testify to the facts and opinions in their records.

2

Baby Trend has not shown any manifest errors of law or newly discovered
evidence or information. The court has reviewed the parties’ submissions and finds no
reason to disturb the court’s earlier ruling. The court stands by the findings in its earlier
order and finds that a limit to thirty depositions is reasonable and sufficient to enable the
parties to prepare this action for trial. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant Baby Trend’s motion to reconsider, Filing No.
578, is denied.
Dated this 31st day of March, 2017.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge

3