Gould v. Major County Board of County Commissioners et al
Filing
75
ORDER denying 72 plaintiff's Motion for New Trial or, in the Alternative, to Reconsider (as more fully set out in order). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 4/23/2014. (ks)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ASHLEY NICOLE NORMAN,
Personal Representative of the
Estate of Rebecca Lee Dewitt Gould,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEVE RANDOLPH, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-11-290-M
ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial or, in the Alternative, to Reconsider,
filed March 18, 2014. On April 4, 2014, defendants filed their response. Plaintiff has filed no reply.
Based upon the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
On February 18, 2014, prior to any trial in this case, the Court granted defendants’ motions
for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of defendants Steve Randolph and Sam Saeger
and against plaintiff. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, plaintiff now moves this Court
for a new trial or, in the alternative, to reconsider its previous ruling granting summary judgment
in favor of defendants.
I.
Motion for New Trial
Rule 59(a)(1) provides:
(a) In General.
(1)
Grounds for New Trial. The court may, on motion,
grant a new trial on all or some of the issues – and to
any party – as follows:
(A)
after a jury trial, for any reason for which a
new trial has heretofore been granted in an
action at law in federal court; or
(B)
after a nonjury trial, for any reason for which
a rehearing has heretofore been granted in a
suit in equity in federal court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1). In the case at bar, there was no jury trial or nonjury trial. Therefore, Rule
59(a)(1) is inapplicable. Rule 59(a)(1), therefore, provides no basis for plaintiff to be entitled to a
new trial.
II.
Motion to Reconsider
Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider under Rule 59(e) include “(1) an intervening
change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct
error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of the Paraclete v. John Does I-XVI, 204 F.3d 1005,
1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
A motion for reconsideration is appropriate “where the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law” but is not appropriate “to revisit
issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.” Id.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds no grounds warranting
reconsideration in the case at bar. Specifically, the Court finds no intervening change in the
controlling law, no new evidence previously unavailable, and no need to correct clear error or
prevent manifest injustice. In her motion, plaintiff relies upon the deposition testimony of both
plaintiff’s expert and defendants’ expert. This testimony, however, is not “new evidence previously
unavailable.” Although the depositions were not conducted until after plaintiff filed her responses
to defendants’ motions for summary judgment, plaintiff was clearly aware of these experts’
opinions, as plaintiff’s expert’s report was issued on December 1, 2013, defendants’ expert’s report
was produced on November 11, 2013, and his supplemental report was produced on December 12,
2013. Further, the deposition testimony of these experts does not differ substantially from the
2
opinions offered in their reports. Thus, both experts’ opinions were available to plaintiff at the time
she filed her responses. Plaintiff could have attached their expert reports and/or an affidavit of her
expert as exhibits to her responses to defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Additionally,
plaintiff never asserted in her responses, or otherwise, that the depositions of the experts were
necessary for her to provide a response to the motions for summary judgment nor did she ever
request any relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).
The Court further finds it did not misapprehend the facts, it did not misapprehend plaintiff’s
position, and it did not misapprehend the controlling law. In her motion, plaintiff simply revisits
issues that were addressed in the Court’s February 18, 2014 Order, advances arguments that could
have, and should have, been raised in her responses to defendants’ motions for summary judgment,
and includes evidence that could have been submitted with her responses to defendants’ motions for
summary judgment.
III.
Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s Motion for New
Trial or, in the Alternative, to Reconsider [docket no. 72].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of April, 2014.
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?