Lackey v. Dement, et al

Filing 137

ORDER DENYING 100 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney. (rg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
AUSTEN LACKEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AUSTIN DEMENT, CRST EXPEDITED,
INC.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

SA-17-CV-00514-FB

ORDER
Before the Court in the above-styled cause of action is Defendants’ Motion for
Reconsideration of AD Hospital East, LLC’s Motion to Quash and Motion for Protection and the
Court’s Order Concerning Same [#100].

By their motion, Defendants ask the Court to

reconsider its July 18, 2019 Order granting Non-Party AD Hospital East, LLC’s (“ADHE”)
Motion to Quash and for Protection [#94], in which the Court ordered that ADHE’s corporate
representative was not required to testify, nor was ADHE required to produce, certain
contractually negotiated reimbursement rates requested by Defendants in discovery.
The Court will deny Defendants’ motion for reconsideration. The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for reconsideration.

Such motions are

therefore generally analyzed under the standards for a motion to alter or amend a judgment under
Rule 59(e) or a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b). See Hamilton
Plaintiffs v. Williams Plaintiffs, 147 F.3d 367, 371 n.10 (5th Cir. 1998).

A motion for

reconsideration under Rule 59(e) “must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the
judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b). Otherwise, the motion falls under Rule 60. Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(c) (“A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and . . . no more
1

than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.”). Because
Defendants filed their motion more than 28 days after the issuance of the challenged order, their
motion is governed by Rule 60(b).
Rule 60(b) provides for relief from a final judgment under the following circumstances:
(i) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (ii) newly discovered evidence which
by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule
59(b); (iii) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (iv) the judgment is
void; (v) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; or (vi) any other reason
justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals,
Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 669 (5th Cir. 1986). This relief is “extraordinary,” and Defendants bear the
burden of demonstrating the exceptional circumstances warranting relief. See Heirs of Guerra v.
United States, 207 F.3d 763, 767 (5th Cir. 2000). Defendants have failed to establish any basis
for the reconsideration of the Court’s previous order.
Defendants’ motion to reconsider is primarily based on a new final rule issued by the
Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) on November 27, 2019, which they allege
imposes duties upon hospitals to establish, update, and make public a list of their standard
charges for various medical services. See 84 Fed. Reg. 65524-01, 2019 WL 6324858 (Nov. 27,
2019). This new rule might require that, at some future date, hospitals disclose standard charge
information that hospitals currently keep confidential. But what might be required of hospitals in
the future pursuant to a new rule does not alter the Court’s analysis or conclusion in its earlier
order. In addition to holding that Defendants had not proved the applicability of North Cypress
or that the requested information was relevant, the Court also held that Defendants had not
rebutted the hospitals’ demonstration that this information is a trade secret. If the impetus for

2

this new HHS rule is that hospitals do not currently disclose this information, that would be
consistent with the Court’s conclusion that hospitals protect negotiated charge information and
keep it secret. In any event, the rule does not constitute “newly discovered evidence,” and
Defendants have not demonstrated any other basis for reconsideration under Rule 60(b).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of AD
Hospital East, LLC’s Motion to Quash and Motion for Protection and the Court’s Order
Concerning Same [#100] is DENIED.
SIGNED this 9th day of January, 2020.

ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3