Evans v. York County Adult Probation and Parole Department et al

Filing 59

ORDER denying deft Lauer's motion for reconsideration 57 of ct's 10/17/11 order 50 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 11/03/11. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GARY PHILLIP EVANS,

:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
YORK COUNTY ADULT PROBATION :
AND PAROLE DEPARTMENT, and
:
DONALD R. LAUER, JR.,
:
:
Defendant
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-1013
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 3rd day of November, 2011, upon consideration of the
motion for reconsideration (Doc. 57) filed by defendant Donald Lauer, Jr. (“Lauer”),
of the court’s order dated October 17, 2011 (Doc. 50), denying plaintiff’s motion in
limine to exclude evidence of the substance of plaintiff’s 2006 convictions, but
ordering the parties to refrain from any mention of the specific details of the 2006
conviction “unless the matter is properly addressed at side bar and the court deems
such evidence admissible at that time,” (id. at 3), wherein Lauer asserts that it
would be highly prejudicial to allow plaintiff to attack him for denying plaintiff the
right to live with his family and attend church without providing the context for
those conditions, and it appearing that the purpose of a motion for reconsideration
is to present newly discovered evidence or to correct manifest errors of law or fact,
see Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), that the court
possesses inherent power to reconsider its orders “when it is consonant with justice
to do so,” United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973); Alea N. Am. Ins.

Co. v. Salem Masonry Co. 301 F. App’x 119, 121 (3d Cir. 2008), and that a party may
not invoke a motion for reconsideration as a means to relitigate matters of
disagreement with the court, see Abu-Jamal v. Horn, No. Civ. A. 99-5089, 2001 WL
1609761, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2001), and the court noting that the court did not
preclude Lauer from introducing specific details about the plaintiff’s 2006 crimes,
but merely ordered that counsel refrain from mention of the specific details until
the court conducts a side bar to determine the admissibility of the evidence within
the context of the trial proceedings, and the court concluding that motion for
reconsideration merely seeks to relitigate a “point of disagreement between the
Court and the litigant,” Abu-Jamal, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9; see also Ogden v.
Keystone Residence, 226 F. Supp. 2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002), it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 57) is DENIED.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge