Craft v. South Carolina State Plastering LLC et al

Filing 60

ORDER denying 57 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on February 27, 2017.(jmcg, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION Jacqueline L. Craft, Trustee of the ) Jacqueline L. Craft Trust U/T/D June 30, ) 1998, and Jacqueline L. Craft, individually, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) South Carolina State Plastering, LLC, ) Peter Conley, Del Webb Communities, Inc., ) and Pulte Homes, Inc., ) ) Defendants. ) ) C.A. No.: 9:15-cv-5080-PMD ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider the Court’s January 12 Order (ECF No. 57). For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs’ motion is denied. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contains two requests that do not fit under Rule 59’s framework. First, Plaintiffs ask the Court to review the presentations subject to Defendants’ subpoena in camera, to hold the January 12 Order in abeyance until that review is complete, and to wait for Plaintiffs to hire additional counsel who would presumably make additional arguments not raised in Plaintiffs’ motion to quash. Neither of these requests demonstrate an intervening change in the controlling law, new evidence that was not available at the time of the Court’s order, a clear error of law or manifest injustice. See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010). Defendants also correctly point out that the Court expressly found that even if the presentations were originally protected under the work–product doctrine, that protection had been waived by Plaintiffs’ counsel’s public disclosure of those presentations. Craft v. S.C. State Plastering, LLC, No. 9:15-cv-5080-PMD, 2017 WL 121854, at *2 (D.S.C. Jan. 12, 2017). Finally, Plaintiffs have had the opportunity to hire counsel or present other arguments on this issue since they filed their motion to quash. The Court will not allow them to wait for an adverse ruling before calling in the cavalry. As a result, Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider must be denied. See Hartsock v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires N. Am. Ltd., No. 2:13-cv-419-PMD, 2014 WL 11022098, at *1 (D.S.C. June 16, 2014) (“A motion for reconsideration . . . ‘is not an opportunity to rehash issues already ruled upon because a litigant is displeased with the result.’” (quoting Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Double Down Entm’t, LLC, No. 0:11-cv-2438-MBS, 2012 WL 6210344, at *2 (D.S.C. Dec. 13, 2012))). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider is DENIED. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. February 27, 2017 Charleston, South Carolina

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?