Opinion
Case No. 00-2275-JAR
June 3, 2003.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR REVIEW
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Review of Plaintiff's Motion to Award Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP 37 Because Defendant Failed to Observe Their Discovery Obligations Pursuant to FRCP 26 (Doc. 152); Motion for Review of Plaintiff's Request That the Court Rule Plaintiff's Motion to Award Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP 37 Because Defendant Failed to Observe Their Discovery Obligations Pursuant to FRCP 26 as Uncontested Pursuant to Rule 7.4 and Award Sanctions to Plaintiff Without Further Delay (Doc. 153); Motion for Review of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 154); and Motion for Review of Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Complaint (Doc. 155). On May 5, 2003, this Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied all of the motions that Plaintiff is asking the Court to review. All of the motions for review were filed on May 15, 2003, and contain only one sentence: "Plaintiff requests review of this motion because of the need to correct clear error and prevent manifest injustice."
A party may file a motion asking a judge to reconsider an order or decision made by that judge. Pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 7.3, motions seeking reconsideration of non-dispositive orders shall be based on "(1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence, or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Motions seeking reconsideration of dispositive orders or judgments must be filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or 60. A motion to reconsider filed within ten days of the entry of final judgment is treated as a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). A motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) may be granted only if the moving party can establish: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that could not have been obtained previously through the exercise of due diligence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Such a motion does not permit a losing party to rehash arguments previously addressed or to present new legal theories or facts that could have been raised earlier. The law in this circuit is clear that a Rule 59(e) motion "cannot be used to expand a judgment to encompass new issues which could have been raised prior to issuance of the judgment." Rule 59(e) motions
D. Kan. Rule 7.3.
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 (1992).
Brumark Corp. v. Samson Resources Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir. 1995).
Brown v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services, 101 F.3d 1324, 1332 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied 520 U.S. 1181 (1997).
Steele v. Young, 11 F.3d 1518, 1520 n. 1 (10th Cir. 1993); see also Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2810.1 ("The Rule 59(e) motion may not be used . . . to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.").
are aimed at reconsideration, not initial consideration. Thus, parties should not use them to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before judgment issued. Motions under Rule 59(e) must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.
Jorge Rivera Surillo Co. v. Falconer Glass Industries, Inc., 37 F.3d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, Plaintiff merely states that review is needed to correct clear error or to prevent manifest injustice. Plaintiff gives no explanation and does not even attempt to establish a manifest error of law. Plaintiff's motions fail to demonstrate that any of the grounds for reconsideration exist. Because Plaintiff has failed to raise or show any of the recognized grounds for relief, Plaintiff's motions for review must be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Review of Plaintiff's Motion to Award Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP 37 Because Defendant Failed to Observe Their Discovery Obligations Pursuant to FRCP 26 (Doc. 152); Motion for Review of Plaintiff's Request That the Court Rule Plaintiff's Motion to Award Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP 37 Because Defendant Failed to Observe Their Discovery Obligations Pursuant to FRCP 26 as Uncontested Pursuant to Rule 7.4 and Award Sanctions to Plaintiff Without Further Delay (Doc. 153); Motion for Review of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 154); and Motion for Review of Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Complaint (Doc. 155) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.