Olympus Managed Health Care, Inc. et al v. American Housecall Physicians, Inc. et al

Filing 94

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 79 Motion for Reconsideration; motion granted as to request for McGuire's costs, plaintiffs to pay costs incurred in defending this action, denied in all other respects. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 6/1/2011. (bsw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:08-cv-532-RJC-DSC
OLYMPUS MANAGED HEALTH CARE, INC .
& OLYMPIC HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS,
INC .,
Plaintiffs,

)
)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
AMERICAN HOUSECALL PHYSICIANS, INC . )
& JONATHAN MC GUIRE,
)
)
Defendants,
)
)
and
)
___________________________________ )
)
AMERICAN HOUSECALL PHYSICIANS, INC . )
F/K /A / INROOM MD, INC .,
)
)
Third-Party Plaintiff and
)
Counterclaimant,
)
)
v.
)
)
RONALD A. DAVIS AND STEVEN W.
)
JACOBSON ,
)
)
Third-Party Defendants.
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Jonathan McGuire and American
Housecall Physicians, Inc.’s (AHP’s) Motion to Reconsider and Impose Conditions on Dismissal
(Doc. No. 79).
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct “manifest errors of law or fact . . . .”
DIRECTV, INC. v. Hart, 366 F. Supp. 2d 315, 317 (E.D.N.C.,2004) (quoting Harsco Corp. v.
Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3rd Cir.1985)). “A motion to reconsider is appropriate where the

court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues
presented to the court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension,”
Id. It is not proper, however, “where the motion merely asks the court to rethink what the Court
had already thought through–rightly or wrongly.” Harsco Corp., 779 F.2d at 909.
Applying this standard, the Court will not rethink its dismissal of Defendant McGuire, and
the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration will be denied. As a result, no further conditions must
be met by the Plaintiffs regarding McGuire’s discovery requests because he is no longer a party to
this suit. However, the remaining defendant, AHP, is free to seek leave of Court to propound
additional discovery requests if it so chooses. After considering the Defendants’ request for
McGuire’s costs and fees, the Court will award McGuire’s costs, but not his attorneys’ fees.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider and Impose
Conditions on Dismissal (Doc. No. 79) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, that is:
1.

GRANTED as to the request for McGuire’s costs, and the Plaintiffs shall pay
McGuire’s costs incurred in defending this action; and

2.

DENIED as to all other requests.
Signed: June 1, 2011

2