Anderson v. Furst

          Victoria A. Roberts, District Judge

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DE 99)

          ANTHONY P. PATTI ANTHONY P. PATTI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. Procedural History

         A. Background

         Plaintiff Jerry Anderson, a state prisoner who is proceeding in forma pauperis, brings this prisoner civil rights lawsuit against three defendants, Colter Furst, Michael Thomas and Nathan Ellis, all Michigan State Police Troopers, alleging they violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force during his arrest on September 4, 2015. (DE 1.) He seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, in addition to compensatory and punitive damages. (Id.)

         B. The Court's February 27, 2019 Order (DE 96)

         On February 27, 2019, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motions to compel (DEs 58, 60, 65). (DE 96.) Specifically, with respect to Plaintiff's motion to compel Plaintiff's second requests for production (DE 58), the Court denied the motion to compel responses to Request Nos. 2-8 because Defendants timely and properly objected to Requests 2-3 and 6-8, Plaintiff failed to articulate how the information sought is relevant to his claims in this lawsuit, and Defendants adequately responded to Request Nos. 4 and 5. (DE 96 at 7-8.) However, the Court granted in part the request to compel a response to Request No. 1 and ordered Defendants to produce civilian complaints against them for the 2008 through 2015 time period, if any. (Id. at 8-9.)

         With respect to Plaintiff's motion to compel his third request for production (DE 60), the Court denied the motion to compel a response to Request No. 1 seeking dash cam audio/video, noting that Defendants produced three videos in response and have stated that “[t]here is nothing left to compel.” (DE 96 at 9-10.) The Court also ordered Defendants to produce color copies of the responsive photographs, to the extent they exist and upon payment by Plaintiff, in response to Request No. 2, and granted Plaintiff's request to compel a response to Request No. 3 seeking a list of any other troopers' vehicles involved in this incident. (Id.)

         And, with respect to Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to interrogatories (DE 65), the Court ordered Defendant Furst to re-submit properly sworn interrogatory responses, and ordered that all objections have been waived, but that Defendants have otherwise sufficiently answered the interrogatories. (DE 96 at 10-12.)

         C. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (DE 99)

         On March 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (in part) of the Court's February 27, 2019 Order. (DE 99.) Plaintiff argues that, with respect to his motion to compel Plaintiff's second requests for production (DE 58), Request Nos. 1-2 and 7-8 are relevant “because he is seeking injunctions against the defendants” and to “prove and or disprove that ‘the entity's policy or custom played a part in violations of law, '” and that Request Nos. 3 and 6 “will give more detail to the facts of [his] claims” including “whether or not any weapons or misc [sic] items were present to pose a danger to either party and the report of damage done will give details on how fast the impact occurred, the angles of impact, and official reports of the incident will give detail on such.” (Id. at 1-2.)^[1]

         And with respect to his motion to compel his third request for production (DE 60), Request No. 1, Plaintiff now contends that if Defendants do not have the video and audio requested, he is “entitled to a favorable view of the ‘missing video/audio' because of defendants spoliation, ” and he seeks various sanctions under Rule 37, including that “plaintiffs [sic] allegations be designated as facts being established; prohibit defendants from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses; staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; rendering a default judgment against the defendants; [and ] treat this as a contempt of court[.]” (Id. at 2-3.)

         II. Standard for Reconsideration

         E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. Under the rule, a motion for reconsideration may only be granted if the movant demonstrates a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled and shows that correcting the defect will lead to 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. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F.Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997). However, a motion for reconsideration which presents the same issues already ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F.Supp.2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Further, new arguments “raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration at the district court generally [are] forfeited.” United States v. Huntington Nat'l Bank, 574 F.3d 329, 331-32 (6th Cir. 2009). “Instead, ...