Thomas v. Owens Corning Composite Materials LLC et al

Filing 60

ORDER denying 57 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 58 Motion for Reconsideration. The parties are to submit a proposed amended scheduling order by February 15, 2012. The proposed order should be emailed to chambers. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/6/12.(gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
James R. Thomas, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Owens Corning Composite
Materials, LLC, Glass,
Molders, Pottery, Plastics
& Allied W orkers International
Union (AFL-CIO), and Local
Union # 15,
Defendants.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 8:10–2210-TMC

OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motions for Reconsideration (Dkt.
#57 and 58). On December 14, 2010, the court held a hearing on Defendants’ Motions
for Summary Judgment. After a lengthy hearing, the court issued its order denying the
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, setting forth with particularity the reasons
therefor. Defendants seek reconsideration of the oral order of the court1.
There are three circumstances in which a court can grant a motion made pursuant
to Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.: “(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling
law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of
law or prevent manifest injustice.” Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396,
403 (4th Cir. 1998). Further, Rule 59 motions may not be used to "relitigate old matters,
or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to entry of

1

In its motion, the Defendant Owens Corning Composite Material, LLC, noted that
the court had not issued a written order and requested that it be allowed to supplement
its motion when a written order became available. (Def. Owens Corning’s Mot. at 1 n.
2). At the hearing, the court stated that the transcript will reflect the court’s oral ruling on
the summary judgment motions. To clarify, there will not be a written order entered on
the Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motions.

judgment", W right, Miller & Kane: Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2810.1 (2nd Ed.).
Upon review of the Defendants' Motions for Reconsideration, the court does not find
grounds to alter or amend its order. The court is unable to discern any material fact or
principal of law that was overlooked or disregarded, and finds that further oral argument
would not aid in the decision-making process. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motions for
Reconsideration (Dkt. # 57 and 58) are DENIED.
The court also notes that at the end of the hearing, the court requested that the
parties submit a proposed amended scheduling order, but to date one has not been
submitted. The parties are to submit a proposed amended scheduling order by February
15, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge

Greenville, South Carolina
February 6, 2012

2