Wethington et al v. Swainson

Filing 61

ORDER denying 50 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 4/29/2016. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
HOLLY WETHINGTON and
MAKENZIE WETHINGTON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROBERT SWAINSON, d/b/a
PEGASUS AIRSPORT CENTER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-899-D

ORDER
Defendant has filed a Motion to Reconsider [Doc. No. 50], which asks the
Court to reconsider its previous orders (1) granting and denying in part Defendant’s
motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 43], (2) granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
Defendant’s Expert Witnesses [Doc. No. 48] and (3) denying Defendant’s Daubert
motion [Doc. No. 49]. A motion to reconsider is appropriate where the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law. Servants of
Paraclete v. John Does I-XVI, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). It should not be
used to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been
raised earlier. Id.
Defendant’s motion contains arguments that were either (1) previously
considered and rejected (his arguments regarding summary judgment and the

admissibility of Plaintiffs’ proposed expert testimony) or (2) could have been raised
earlier (his response to Plaintiff’s motion to strike his proffered experts). Thus, his
motion is overruled. Although Defendant cites his pro se status and lack of knowledge
regarding civil procedure, he is reminded again that his pro se status does not excuse
him from familiarizing himself with, and following, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Local Rules of this District, and the Court’s sRules. See Nielsen v.
Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir.1994) (“This court has repeatedly insisted that pro
se parties ‘follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.’”) (citations
omitted). Defendant has presented no evidence showing that the Court has either
misapprehended the facts, Defendant’s position, or the controlling law; nor has
Defendant established any other good cause for reconsideration, and therefore, the
motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of April, 2016.

-2-