Mowett v. Auto Owners Insurance Company et al, No. 2:2015cv14166 - Document 36 (E.D. Mich. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 34 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Mowett v. Auto Owners Insurance Company et al Doc. 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DAVID MOWETT, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15-14166 AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. / OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. #34.) Defendant has not filed a response, but after reviewing the brief, the court deems that none is necessary. Subject to the court’s discretion, a motion for reconsideration shall be granted only if the movant “demonstrate[s] a palpable defect by which the court and the parties . . . have been misled” and “show[s] that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is ‘a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.’” Buchanan v. Metz, 6 F. Supp. 3d 730, 752 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (quoting United States v. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d 682, 684 (E.D. Mich. 2004)). The court “will not grant motions for . . . reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). Plaintiff argues that the court should reconsider its earlier grant of dismissal as a sanction for failure to comply with the court’s orders regarding his discovery obligations, (Dkt. #32), on the basis that Defendant did not truly attempt to resolve discovery Dockets.Justia.com disputes in good faith, that Defendant made unspecified “grossly erroneous assumptions to the court[,]” that Plaintiff struggled to communicate with opposing counsel, that Plaintiff is “not aware if local counsel was present” at a status conference in November, that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the December 19th deadline was really the result of a technical failure, and that he suffered from medical problems resulting in “sudden and necessary medical procedures” which “negatively affected Plaintiff in the months of November and December[,]” (Dkt. #34, Pg. ID 240-41). None of the above items identify a palpable defect in the court’s order, the correction of which would result in a different resolution of the case. Most of the items “merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court.” See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). The court sympathizes with Plaintiff’s medical problems, but it began threatening dismissal as a sanction in September for misconduct which occurred as early as June, before Plaintiff’s illness emerged, (See Dkt. #24). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #34) is DENIED. S/Robert H. Cleland ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: March 23, 2017 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, March 23, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. S/Lisa Wagner Case Manager and Deputy Clerk (810) 984-2056 3/23/17:S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\15-14166.MOWETT.Reconsideration.bss.wpd 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
