Reisinger v. City of Wilkes Barre et al

Filing 52

MOTION for Reconsideration by Joseph R. Reisinger. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reisinger, Joseph)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH R. REISINGER, Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF WILKES BARRE; THOMAS LEIGHTON; FRANCES KRATZ; GREGORY BARROUK; MICHAEL KERMEC and THE CADLE COMPANY II, INC. Defendants : : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION ­ LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

(Honorable Richard P. Conaboy)

No. 3:09-CV-210

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S AUGUST 16, 2010 ORDER AND ALSO THIS COURT'S AUGUST 17, 2010 ORDER The Plaintiff, Joseph R. Reisinger, pro se, respectfully moves this Court, because of all the reasons set forth herein, for reconsideration of this Court's August 16, 2010 Order, granting the Defendants' Motion for a Modified Case Management Plan, and for this Court to adopt the following: (i) to enter an Order specifically vacating this Court's August 16, 2010 Order, (ii) to enter an Order specifically denying the Defendants' Motion for the Modified Case Management Plan, and (iii) to enter an Order granting the Modified Case Management Plan proposed by the Plaintiff, which allows for sixty days after the receipt of the requested information from the Defendants for purposes of him preparing his expert reports, and then for him to begin scheduling the depositions to be undertaken of the Defendants, and all related persons, as necessary, based on the timetable set forth in the above Modified Case Management Plan.

1

Further, the Plaintiff, respectfully moves this Court, because of the reasons set forth herein, for reconsideration of this Court's August 17, 2010 Order, denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Motion to Compel Discovery, and for this Court to adopt the following: (i) to enter an Order specifically vacating this Court's August 17, 2010 Order, (ii) to enter an Order specifically granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery from the City Defendants, and (iii) to enter an Order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery from the Cadle Defendants. Further, the Plaintiff has filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of this Motion for Reconsideration of both the Court's August 16, 2010 Order, and the Court's August 17, 2010 Order, which sets forth all of the reasons and all of the legal authority for why the Plaintiff believes that this Court should grant the Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff, Joseph R. Reisinger, respectfully requests that this Court grant his Motion for Reconsideration, by vacating this Court's Order of August 16, 2010, and this Court's Order of August 17, 2010 and issuing an order now granting all of the above requests.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Joseph R. Reisinger Joseph R. Reisinger, pro se as Plaintiff 444 S. Franklin Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702

2