United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ANTHONY P. PATTI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING OAKLAND UNIVERSITY
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 AND GRANTING OAKLAND UNIVERSITY
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
April 24, 2017, the Court granted Medicolegal Services'
Motion for Sanctions  and denied Oakland Defendants'
Motion for Sanctions  on the ground that compliance with
the safe harbor provision of Rule 11 had not been
demonstrated. Dkt. No. 51. Shortly thereafter, Oakland
University Defendants filed the present Motion for
Reconsideration , arguing that they need not have
attached documentation of their compliance to comply with
Court does not conduct hearings on motions for
reconsideration, E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(1), and accordingly the
motion will be resolved solely on the briefing. For the
reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS Oakland University
Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration .
Court has recited the facts regarding Plaintiff's two
cases against Defendants in prior orders, and will not repeat
those facts here for the sake of brevity. See Dkt.
Nos. 44, 51; Hawthorne-Burdine v. Oakland Univ., 158
F.Supp.3d 586 (E.D. Mich. 2016); Hawthorne-Burdine v.
Oakland Univ., No. 16-1103 (6th Cir. Nov. 3, 2016).
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) provides:
Generally, and without restricting the Court's
discretion, the Court will not grant motions for rehearing or
reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled
upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable
defect by which the Court and the parties and other persons
entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also
show that correcting the defect will result in a different
disposition of the case.
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable defect'
is ‘a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable,
manifest, or plain.' ” United States v.
Lockett, 328 F.Supp.2d 682, 684 (E.D. Mich. 2004)
(citing United States v. Cican, 156 F.Supp.2d 661,
668 (E.D. Mich. 2001)). “[A] motion for reconsideration
is not properly used as a vehicle to re-hash old arguments or
to advance positions that could have been argued earlier but
were not.” Smith ex rel. Smith v. Mount Pleasant
Pub. Sch., 298 F.Supp.2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich. 2003)
(citing Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v.
Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)).
The Court Made A Palpable Error in Denying Oakland University
Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Based on Failure to
Demonstrate Compliance with the Safe Harbor
Sixth Circuit has held that strict adherence to Rule 11's
outlined procedure is required for a court to grant
sanctions. Penn, LLC v. Prosper Bus. Dev. Corp., 773
F.3d 764, 767-68 (6th Cir. 2014) (noting that a warning
letter cannot substitute for the properly and timely served
motion Rule 11 requires). Although Sixth Circuit has
previously has referenced Hadges v. Yonkers Racing
Corp., 48 F.3d 1320, 1328 (2d Cir. 1995), where a
sanction award was reversed in part “because no
evidence indicated compliance with ‘safe harbor'
period that current version of Rule 11 specifically mandates,
” Ridder v. City of Springfield, ...