Smith v. Donate et al

Filing 120

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 118 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Alan Smith. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on November 30, 2011. (kjn )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALAN SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
JANINE DONATE, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 4:10-CV-2133
(Judge Rambo)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Alan Smith has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the

Court’s order denying his motion to compel the defendants to produce information
regarding the make and model of a video camera that Plaintiff contends was used
to film a cell extraction at the Lackawanna County Prison that forms part of the
basis for this lawsuit. (Doc. 118) In the Court’s original order denying the motion
to compel, the Court noted that Defendants’ counsel had represented to the Court
that no video recording of this incident was made, (Doc. 98, at 9-10), and for that
reason ruled that the discovery Smith sought regarding the video camera lacked
any relevance under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 114, at
10)

In the brief Smith has filed in support of his motion for reconsideration, he
maintains that the Court “clearly erred” in denying his motion to compel the
production of this information. (Doc. 119, at 2) Smith asserts that some of the
defendants have provided inconsistent statements regarding the use of a video
camera during the cell extraction, and he argues that he should be permitted to
discover information about the make and model of the video, and information
relating to its purchase, so that he can “prove at trial that the Defendants have
repeatedly falsified the statements in their incident reports, interrogatories, etc.”
(Doc. 119, at 3)
We disagree, and find that Smith has not demonstrated a sufficiently
compelling basis to cause this Court to revisit its prior ruling, or to order the
defendants to provide this information. Regardless of whether some of the
defendants have provided information during discovery that is inconsistent –
something about which we take no position in this order – we remain unable to
perceive how basic information regarding the alleged camera’s make, model, and
purchase is relevant either to Plaintiff’s substantive claims, or to impeach
individual defendants by proving “that the Defendants have repeatedly falsified the
statements in their incident reports, interrogatories, etc.”

2

II.

DISCUSSION

The legal standards that govern motions for reconsideration of prior court
rulings are both clear and clearly compelling. “The purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.
1985). Typically, such a motion should only be granted in three narrowly defined
circumstances, where a court finds: (1) that there has been an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or
(3) a need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Howard
Hess Dental Labs. Inc. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir. 2010)
(citing Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)).
In consideration of this narrow standard, it is well-settled that a mere
disagreement with the court does not translate into the type of clear error of law
which justifies reconsideration of a ruling. Dodge v. Susquehanna Univ., 796 F.
Supp. 829, 830 (M.D. Pa. 1992). Furthermore, “[b]ecause federal courts have a
strong interest in the finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be
granted sparingly.” Continental Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp.
937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995). Moreover, a motion for reconsideration is not a tool to

3

re-litigate and reargue issues which have already been considered and disposed of
by the court. Dodge, 796 F. Supp. at 830.
In this case, it seems that Smith is asserting that the Court made a clear error
either of fact or law, because the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel
discovery of basic information regarding the make and model of a video camera at
the Lackawanna County Prison that Plaintiff believes may have been used to
record incidents occurring at the prison involving Plaintiff on November 21, 2008.
However, we find no substantial basis either to reconsider the Court’s earlier
ruling, or to compel defendants to produce this information – information that
Plaintiff seems to be arguing will be relevant to prove that some of the defendants
have provided inconsistent discovery responses, and thereby to impeach their
testimony at trial.
Even if it is true that some of the defendants have provided discovery
responses that appear inconsistent, we nevertheless do not agree with Plaintiff that
the very basic information regarding the video camera that he seeks is relevant
within the definition of Rule 26(b), or to prove the substance of Plaintiff’s
allegations in this action, or even to impeach the defendants.1 Plaintiff has simply

1

To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to impeach the defendants about their
allegedly inconsistent discovery responses, he will not be prevented from doing so
by anything in this order or in the Court’s order denying his motion to compel.
4

not persuasively articulated the relevance of this information, and we, therefore,
find no basis to set aside the Court’s earlier ruling denying Plaintiff’s motion to
compel with respect to information concerning the video camera.
III.

ORDER
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 118) is DENIED.

/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
Date: November 30, 2011

However, Plaintiff has not explained in any way how the information about the
video camera that he seeks has any bearing on the truth or falsity of the discovery
responses that he has received to date from individual defendants. Accordingly,
given Plaintiff’s own representations regarding his motivation for seeking this
information, we are unable to discern its relevance.
5