United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of
this Court's March 27, 2018 Order (Doc. No. 141), and
motion to compel Defendant's compliance with this
Court's March 27, 2018 Memorandum and Order (Doc. No.
143). Defendant has filed a brief in opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 145), as
well as a certificate of nonconcurrence and concurrence (Doc.
No. 146), providing that Defendant intends to file a brief in
opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel, but concurs
with Plaintiff that the dispositive motion deadline should be
extended pending resolution of the discovery-related motions.
Defendant has subsequently filed a brief in opposition to
Plaintiff's motion to compel on May 3, 2018. (Doc. No.
March 27, 2018, this Court granted in part Plaintiff's
motion to compel discovery, denied Plaintiff's motion to
strike a videotape under seal, and denied without prejudice
Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff's motion for
judgment on the pleadings and motion for oral argument. (Doc.
Nos. 139, 140.) The Court further directed the parties to
renew their dispositive motions on or before April 26, 2018.
(Doc. No. 140.)
April 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration
of the Court's decision on his motion to strike the
videotape. (Doc. No. 141.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to
compel Defendant's compliance with this Court's March
27, 2018 Memorandum and Order, alleging that Defendant's
responses to a number of interrogatories and requests for
admissions were unresponsive and vague. (Doc. No. 143.) In
the same motion, Plaintiff requests an extension of time to
file dispositive motions pending the resolution of the
discovery-related motions. (Id.) Defendant concurs
that this Court should extend the dispositive motions
deadline. (Doc. No. 146.) The Court will address
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and the
parties' request for an extension of time to file
dispositive motions below. The Court will address
Plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. No. 143), in a
scope of a motion under Rule 59(e) “is extremely
limited.” Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415
(3d Cir. 2011). Its purpose is to correct manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d
Cir. 1985). Accordingly, a party seeking reconsideration must
demonstrate at least one of the following grounds prior to
the court altering or amending a standing judgment: (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court entered judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear
error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.
Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing North River Ins. Co. v.
CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir.
1995)). A motion for reconsideration is appropriate in
instances where the court has “patently misunderstood a
party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues
presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error
not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Rohrbach v.
AT&T Nassau Metals Corp., 902 F.Supp. 523, 527 (M.D.
Pa. 1995), vacated in part on other grounds on
reconsideration, 915 F.Supp. 712 (M.D. Pa. 1996) (quoting
Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc.,
99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). It may not be used as a
means to reargue unsuccessful theories, or argue new facts or
issues that were not presented to the court in the context of
the matter previously decided. Drysdale v. Woerth,
153 F.Supp.2d 678, 682 (E.D. Pa. 2001). “Because
federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of
judgments, motions for reconsideration should be granted
sparingly.” Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Diversified
Indus., Inc., 884 F.Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
requests that this Court reconsider the portion of its March
27, 2018 Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiff's motion
to strike the videotape filed under seal. (Doc. No. 141). The
basis of Plaintiff's motion appears to be his belief that
Defendant has not produced to him the entire video and/or all
surveillance video of CCTV camera 180, or that Defendant has
edited the video. (Doc. No. 142 at 1.) The Court previously
addressed these arguments in its March 27, 2018 Memorandum
and Order. (Doc. Nos. 139, 140.)
in his brief filed in support of his motion for
reconsideration, Plaintiff confirms that he spoke with
counsel for Defendant, who informed him that there are no
other tapes of the assault. (Doc. No. 142 at 1.) Indeed, in
Defendant's brief in opposition, Defendant acknowledges
that it was ordered by this Court that to “the extent
Defendant possesses or can obtain video footage from camera
180 that depicts the time from 5:24:15 pm to 5:27:24 on the
date of [the] incident, Defendant is directed to submit the
same under seal and in camera to this Court.”
(Id.) Defendant maintains that it “does not
possess or have the ability to obtain the video footage from
camera 180 from 5:24:15 pm to 5:27:24 pm on the date of the
incident.” (Id.) While Plaintiff may be
dissatisfied with this response, Defendant cannot produce
what does not exist. See Brown v. Beard, No.
04-cv-2625, 2007 WL 210798, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2007).
motion for reconsideration neither demonstrates an
intervening change in controlling law nor provides any
evidence that was not previously available to this Court.
Rather, Plaintiff merely reasserts the same arguments he
previously advanced. This simply “cannot provide the
basis for a successful motion for reconsideration.”
See Blystone, 664 F.3d at 146. Consequently, because
Plaintiff does not advance an intervening change in
controlling law, provide any evidence that was not previously
available to the Court, and the Court does not find any
manifest errors of law or fact in its prior Order,
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration will be denied.
Additionally, the Court will stay the dispositive motion
deadline pending its resolution of Plaintiff's motion to
accordance with the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration (Dosc. No. 141), is denied, and the
applicable deadline for dispositive motions is stayed pending