United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [#228] AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
AMEND THE JOINT FINAL PRETRIAL REPORT [#229]
Page Hood, Chief United States District Judge.
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.
Standard of Review
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
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).
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)).
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,  [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.
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.
have failed to demonstrate a palpable defect or clear error
in the Court's ...