United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
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, ...