WILLIAMS v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH et al
ORDER denying 239 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 7/10/2017. (lmt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
OFFICER ERIC BAKER, OFFICER
BRENDAN NEE, OFFICER NATHAN
AUVIL, and STEPHEN MATAKOVICH,
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the portion of the Court’s
prior Order (doc. no. 223) granting in part Defendants’ Motion to Strike Deposition Excerpts.
Doc. no. 239. The portion of the Court’s prior Order which Plaintiff would like the Court to
reconsider essentially precludes Plaintiff from offering deposition excerpts as substantive
evidence at the time of trial. Defendants Baker, Nee, Auvil, and Matakovich filed Responses
opposing the Motion for Reconsideration. Doc. nos. 242 and 243.
A proper motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) must rely on one of three grounds:
(1) intervening change in controlling law; (2) availability of new evidence that was not available
when the Court entered judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting
Max’s Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 678 (3d Cir. 1999)).
A court may not grant a Motion for Reconsideration when the motion simply restyles or
rehashes issues previously presented. Pahler v. City of Wilkes Barre, 207 F.Supp.2d 341, 355
(M.D. Pa. 2001); see also Carroll v. Manning, 414 Fed. Appx. 396, 398 (3d Cir. 2011)
(affirming denial of “motion for reconsideration and ‘petition’ in support thereof appears to
merely reiterate the allegations made in the . . . petition and does not set forth any basis justifying
reconsideration.”); and Grigorian v. Attorney General of U.S., 282 Fed. Appx. 180, 182 (3d Cir.
2008) (affirming denial of Motion to Reconsider because it “does nothing more than reiterate the
arguments underlying his motion to reinstate the appeal.”).
A motion for reconsideration “addresses only factual and legal matters that the Court may
have overlooked . . . . It is improper on a motion for reconsideration to ask the Court to rethink
what [it] had already thought through rightly or wrongly.” Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of
Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (internal citation and quotes omitted).
Because federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments, motions for
reconsideration should be granted sparingly. Rossi v. Schlarbaum, 600 F.Supp.2d 650, 670 (E.D.
It appears that here, Plaintiff believes this Court has made a “clear error of law” and
should reconsider its decision to preclude Plaintiff from proffering deposition excerpts at the
time of trial. The Court disagrees.
The Court notes that most of the cases cited by Plaintiff in his Motion for
Reconsideration and are not binding on this Court. Plaintiff cites to cases emanating from the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth, Fourth, Fifth, and D.C. Circuits. The cases that
Plaintiff cites which do emanate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
are not on point with his argument. In fact, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit did not
discuss the use of deposition testimony in lieu of live testimony in either PPG Indus. V.
Zurwain, 52 Fed.App’x 570, 577 (3d Cir. 2002) and State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lincow,
444 Fed.App’x 617 (3d Cir. 2011). Moreover, some of the cases Plaintiff cited in his Motion
for Reconsideration were the same cases he cited in his Brief in Opposition to the Motion to
Strike. As noted, these are the same arguments he raised in response to Defendants’ Motion to
Strike which led to the Court’s prior Order (doc. no. 223).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (doc. no. 239) is DENIED as it
attempts to rehash and relitigate an issue this Court already decided.
/s/ Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge
cc: All ECF Counsel of Record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?