United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
R. Grand United States Magistrate Judge
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ,
AMENDED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION , AND
MOTION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE MEDICAL
DOCUMENTATION , AND PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
A LATE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
Gershwin A. Drain United States District Court Judge
October 19, 2016, the Court struck Plaintiff's Response
to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as untimely
pursuant to the Court's earlier order. See Dkt.
No. 31. That same day, Plaintiff filed two motions for
reconsideration, alleging that the Court granted summary
judgment to Defendants in its motion striking Plaintiff's
untimely response brief. See Dkt. No. 32, 33. On
October 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a third motion, requesting
that the Court consider medical documentation regarding
Plaintiff's Counsel's daughter. Dkt. No. 34.
Plaintiff filed an errata sheet on the amended motion on
October 24, 2016. Dkt. No. 35.
Plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration are based on an
obvious misunderstanding of the Court's order and do not
provide evidence that the Court made any palpable errors, the
Court will DENY the Plaintiff's Motions [32, 33].
Additionally, the Court will also DENY Plaintiff's Motion
to Provide Medical Documentation , pursuant to its denial
of the motions for reconsideration.
this Court's Local Rules, the Court may not grant a
motion for reconsideration that merely presents the same
issues upon which the Court already ruled. LR 7.1(h)(3) (E.D.
Mich. July 1, 2013). Additionally, the movant must
demonstrate that there is a palpable defect in the opinion or
order under attack and that correcting the defect will result
in a different disposition of the case. Id.;
Indah v. U.S. S.E.C., 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir.
2011). “A ‘palpable defect' is a defect which
is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.”
Hawkins v. Genesys Health Systems, 704 F.Supp.2d
688, 709 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (quoting Ososki v. St. Paul
Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F.Supp.2d 714, 718 (E.D.
The Court Did Not Grant Summary Judgment To
Court's order striking Plaintiff's untimely response
did not state or imply that Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment had been granted. See Dkt. No. 31.
There was no notification on the docket implying that the
hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment had been cancelled
pursuant to the order striking Plaintiff's response.
There was no entry of an opinion and order granting summary
judgment following the order striking Plaintiff's
stated, there are no facts that support Plaintiff's
allegation that the Court granted Defendants summary
judgment. The Court has not yet ruled on the summary judgment
motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's misunderstanding of the
Court's order does not provide evidence that the Court
has made a palpable defect.
Plaintiff Submitted a Late Response Without Seeking
Permission of the Court
motion for a second extension of time to respond to
Defendants' Motion for Summary was requested in order for
Plaintiff to receive deposition transcripts of Commander
Hopper, Sergeant Hall, and Officer Wietfeldt. See
Dkt. No. 28. Plaintiff explicitly requested that the Court
allow him to respond “on or before October 13,
2016.” Id. at 2. Although this was the second
extension requested on the matter, the Court granted it
pursuant to the terms that Plaintiff requested. Dkt. No. 29
(“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until
October 13, 2016 to file a response brief to the Motion for
Summary Judgment.”). The Court also explicitly stated