Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jacobs v. Alam

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

December 23, 2019

EDUARDO JACOBS, Plaintiff,
v.
WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTY RAYMON ALAM, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [#228] AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO AMEND THE JOINT FINAL PRETRIAL REPORT [#229]

          Denise Page Hood, Chief United States District Judge.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This matter is now before the Court on Defendants Raymon Alam and David Weinman (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Reconsideration filed on November 18, 2019. [ECF No. 228] On November 13, 2019, the Court entered an Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony. [ECF No. 227] For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony.

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. Standard of Review

         The Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan provide that any motion for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). No. response to the motion and no oral argument thereon are permitted unless the Court orders otherwise. Id. at 7.1(h)(2). Defendants' Motion is timely filed.

         Local Rule 7.1 further states:

(3) Grounds. 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.

Id. at 7.1(h)(3).

         A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash old arguments, or to proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could have brought up earlier. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998) (motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) “are aimed at re consideration, not initial consideration”) (citing FDIC v. World Universal Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992)).

         The Court finds that Defendants' motion primarily presents the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. Defendants assert that the expert testimony should not be permitted because of the Court's Scheduling Order on March 24, 2016, [1] [ECF No. 44] which ended expert witness disclosure on October 2, 2016. However, following instructions from the Sixth Circuit, the case was remanded to this Court. [ECF No. 159] The Court finds that absent instructions from the Sixth Circuit, the decision to allow further evidence upon remand is in “the sound discretion of the trial court.” Skehan v. Board of Trustees of Bloomsburg State College, 590 F.2d 470, 478 (3d Cir. 1978). The Court relies on its previous ruling and maintains that Defendants had ample notice to prepare for the testimony of Dr. Paranjpe and Mr. Hostetler. As for the amended expert report submitted by Mr. Hostetler on November 5, 2019, the Court finds that his ultimate conclusions were unchanged. However, given new information that he relied upon to amend his report, the Court will allow Defendants to depose Mr. Hostetler about his revisions.

         In the interest of equity, the Court will also GRANT Defendants' Motion to Amend the Joint Final Pretrial Report [ECF No. 228], which will allow Defendants to produce their own expert vocational witness, Ms. Jacquelyn Schabacker, to rebut Mr. Hostetler's testimony.

         Defendants have failed to demonstrate a palpable defect or clear error in the Court's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.