Sauer Incorporated v. Lexington Insurance Agency, Inc.

Filing 105

ORDER denying 77 Motion for Reconsideration. The Clerk of Court isDIRECTED to continue management in this case. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 8/11/2015. (Edwards, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:13-CV-180-F

SAUER INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)

)

~

LEXINGTON INSURANCE AGENCY INC.
D/B/A LEXINGTON INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendant Lexington Insurance Company's
("Lexington") Motion for Reconsideration [DE-77]. For the reasons set forth below, the motion
is DENIED.
Lexington seeks reconsideration of an order [DE-76] denying its motion to compel the
United States Army Corps ofEngineers ("USACE") to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness.
Reconsideration is only appropriate when the decision of the court is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). This court disagrees with the assertion that the order
denying Lexington's motion is clearly erroneous or contrary to law and instead agrees with and
. adopts the reasoning and outcome outlined in that order. The USACE decision not to comply
with Lexington's subpoena was not arbitrary or capricious. It is clear from the exchange between
the parties that Lexington's request was not in compliance with the Army's regulations for
requesting information. Furthermore, it was also clear that the Army felt the request was unduly
burdensome given the fact that it had already produced some 2,000 pages of documents for an

action where USACE is not even a party. For the same reasons set forth in the Order of October
31, 2014 [DE-76], Lexington is not entitled to reconsideration.
The Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration [DE-77] is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to continue management in this case.
SO ORDERED.

,_

This, the 1J_ day of August, 2015.

J
SC.FOX
Seruor United States District Judge

2