GREEN v. BURKHART et al

Filing 213

MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING 204 Motion for Reconsideration; DENYING 211 Motion for Clarification. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 7/7/2017. (eet)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TYRONE GREEN,
Plaintiff,

1:14cv0159
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

v.
RAYMOND BURKHART, et al.
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (DOC. NO. 204) AND MOTION TO CLARIFY (DOC. NO. 211)
Plaintiff Tyrone Green has filed two new motions regarding the reconsideration of
previous Orders related to alleged spoliation of evidence (both video and documents) and
sanctions imposed by the Court.
Prior motions for sanctions for spoliation of evidence filed by Plaintiff were addressed
during a conference held November 19, 2014, and by an Order issued by United States
Magistrate Judge Baxter on August 11, 2015. Doc. No. 123. When this case was transferred to
the undersigned District Judge for trial, all pleadings and previous rulings were reviewed.
Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Order at doc. no. 123, the Court directed the Parties to
address the only remaining issue related to alleged spoliation of evidence, and imposed the
sanction of a curative jury instruction. Doc. No. 182. Plaintiff asked for reconsideration of that
Order, doc. no. 197, and was denied, doc. no. 200. In these two most recent filings, Plaintiff reraises the same arguments regarding other video evidence and documentary evidence already
ruled upon. See Doc. No. 204 and Doc. No. 211.

Reconsideration of prior court orders is generally inappropriate and is only proper “to
correct manifest errors of law or fact” or to address newly discovered evidence. Max’s Seafood
Cafe v. Quinterosh, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999), quoting Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779
F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Plaintiff does not state any new law or facts that make a
reconsideration of the prior orders regarding spoliation and sanctions appropriate, nor does he
present any newly discovered evidence. Instead, he repeats the same recitation of grievance
numbers that led Magistrate Judge Baxter to deny the motions for sanctions on August 11, 2015:
“Plaintiff does not provide any information or argument as to how any of the requested videos
are relevant to any of the numerous claims raised in this action. Instead, Plaintiff simply
identifies each of the twelve missing videos at issue by reference to a Grievance Number.” Doc.
No. 64. Repetition of facts previously addressed does not constitute new facts or evidence that
requires reconsideration by the Court. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.
1985) (“When Zlotnicki moved that the district court reconsider its summary judgment order, he
argued that the court had erred, but he submitted no new evidence. He filed only his own
affidavit containing evidence that was available prior to the summary judgment.”).
Similarly, the Court has now twice ruled upon Plaintiff’s repeated requests for sanctions
related to documentary evidence. See Doc. No. 163 and Doc. No. 200. There is nothing left to
clarify, and the Court will not reconsider its prior Orders based upon Plaintiff’s repetitive
arguments.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, doc. no. 204, is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to
Clarify, doc. no. 211, is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of July, 2017,
s/Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab,
United States District Judge