United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
May 5, 2014
CATHALENE JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.
AND NOW, this 5th day of May, 2014, upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 147) filed by plaintiff Cathalene Johnson, wherein Johnson seeks reconsideration of the court's order (Doc. 142) dated April 24, 2014, denying Johnson's motion in limine to exclude undisclosed witnesses,  and it appearing that the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to present newly discovered evidence or to correct manifest errors of law or fact, see Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki , 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), and that the court possesses inherent power to reconsider its orders "when it is consonant with justice to do so, " United States v. Jerry , 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973); Alea N. Am. Ins. Co. v. Salem Masonry Co. 301 F.Appx. 119, 121 (3d Cir. 2008), but it also appearing that a party may not invoke a motion for reconsideration as a means to relitigate matters of disagreement with the court, see Abu-Jamal v. Horn, No. Civ. A. 99-5089 , 2001 WL 1609761, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2001), nor is a motion for reconsideration "an opportunity for a party to present previously available evidence or new arguments, " Federico v. Charterers Mut. Assurance Ass'n Ltd. , 158 F.Supp.2d 565, 577 (E.D. Pa. 2001); see also Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki , 779 F.2d at 909, and the court noting that Johnson asserts that new evidence justifies reconsideration of her motion in limine, but that Johnson merely argues that defendant Federal Express Corporation's ("FedEx") rationale for the necessity of these witnesses is meritless and that additional investigation of the depositions reveals that FedEx's disclosure of the witnesses was insufficient,  see Jama Corp. v. Gupta, No. 3:99-CV-1624 , 2008 WL 554905, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2008) (denying motion for reconsideration when plaintiffs only submitted previously available documentation in support of underlying motion for attorney's fees), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 147) of the court's order (Doc. 142) dated April 24, 2014 is DENIED.