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, )

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