Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Donahue v. Smith

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

November 13, 2017

SARAH BARNETT DONAHUE Plaintiff
v.
RANDY SMITH, et al. Defendants

         SECTION "E" (3)

          ORDER AND REASONS

          SUSIE MORGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Sarah Donahue's “Motion for a New Trial or to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.”[1] Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants Alex Dantagnan, Brandon Donahue, Michael Ripoll, Randy Smith, and Steven Gaudet.[2] The motion is opposed.[3] For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the motion.

         On September 11, 2017, the Court granted Dantagnan, Donahue, Ripoll, Smith, and Gaudet's motions for summary judgment.[4] Although Plaintiff styles her motion as a motion for a new trial, Plaintiff challenges the Court's ruling on these motions, not a judgment resulting from a trial on the merits. Therefore, only Rule 59(e) applies to Plaintiff's motion, and the Court construes the motion as one for reconsideration.

         A motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.”[5] A motion for reconsideration, however, “is ‘not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of [the order].'”[6] “The Court is mindful that ‘[r]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.'”[7] “When there exists no independent reason for reconsideration other than mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a waste of judicial time and resources and should not be granted.”[8]

         In deciding motions under the Rule 59(e) standards, the courts in this district have considered the following factors:

(1) whether the movant demonstrates the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based;
(2) whether the movant presents new evidence;
(3) whether the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest injustice; and
(4) whether the motion is justified by an intervening change in the controlling law.[9]

         In her motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues the Court should grant her motion to reconsider under the second option, averring she “has now acquired the testimony of Sergeant Wanda Jarvis.”[10] Plaintiff contends this “new evidence” demonstrates Brandon Donahue “abused his authority as a deputy sheriff, ” that Major Herbert “altered” Sergeant Jarvis's report on Brandon Donahue, and that Major Herbert ignored Sergeant Jarvis's recommendation that “Reserve Deputy Donahue be terminated and that Sergeant Dantagnan be disciplined.”[11] According to Plaintiff, “[t]his certainly proves-or at least establishes a genuine issue of material fact about-a conspiracy within the Sheriff's Department to protect their own.”[12]

         In opposition, Defendants point out that Plaintiff acquired this alleged “new evidence” before Defendants submitted their respective motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff admits in her motion for reconsideration that she spoke with Sergeant Jarvis on July 11, 2017, [13] approximately one month before Defendants filed their motions for summary judgment[14] and approximately two months before this Court ruled on the motions.[15] Rule 59(e) “cannot be used to raise new arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.”[16]

         Accordingly;

         Plaintiff Sarah Donahue's motion for reconsideration is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.