Miller v. Legacy Bank
Miller v. Legacy Bank
2023 WL 5734959 (W.D. Okla. 2023)
April 24, 2023
DeGiusti, Timothy D., United States District Judge
Summary
The Court denied four motions to quash filed by Plaintiff Marquise Miller regarding ESI. The Court then received four additional motions from Plaintiff requesting reconsideration of the Court's order, but found no grounds warranting reconsideration and denied the motions. The Court also denied Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite Ruling on Motion to Alter or Amend Judgments as moot.
Additional Decisions
Marquise MILLER, Plaintiff,
v.
LEGACY BANK, Defendant
v.
LEGACY BANK, Defendant
Case No. CIV-20-946-D
United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Signed April 24, 2023
Counsel
Marquise Miller, Edmond, OK, Pro Se.Andrew L. Walding, Walding Law PLLC, Oklahoma City, OK, Jamie L. Bloyd, Robert E. Norman, Cheek & Falcone PLLC, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant.
DeGiusti, Timothy D., United States District Judge
ORDER
*1 On April 10, 2023, the Court denied four motions to quash filed by Plaintiff Marquise Miller. See 4/10/2023 Order [Doc. No. 184]. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed four additional motions[1] requesting that the Court alter or amend its order denying his motions to quash. See [Doc. Nos. 187-190].[2] The Court construes Plaintiff's motions as motions for reconsideration.[3]
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a ‘motion to reconsider.’ ” Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991). However, “a district court always has the inherent power to reconsider its interlocutory rulings.” Warren v. Am. Bankers Ins. of FL, 507 F.3d 1239, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007). “Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
Having reviewed Plaintiff's motions, the Court finds no grounds warranting reconsideration of its April 10, 2023 Order. Plaintiff points to no statement in the Court's order that is factually or legally incorrect. Rather, Plaintiff rehashes the arguments previously advanced in several reply briefs associated with his original motions to quash. See Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012 (Reconsideration “is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.”); Matosantos Com. Corp. v. Applebee's Int'l, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 467, 468 (D. Kan. 1999), aff'd, 245 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2001) (“A motion to reconsider is not a second opportunity for the losing party to make its strongest case, to rehash arguments, or to dress up arguments that previously failed.”). Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that reconsideration of the prior order is warranted, Plaintiff's motions [Doc. Nos. 187-190] are DENIED.[4] See Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 944 (10th Cir. 1995) (“[A] motion for reconsideration is an extreme remedy to be granted in rare circumstances.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of April, 2023.
Footnotes
Each motion repeats, verbatim, the same arguments and authorities.
Where, as here, a party is proceeding pro se, the Court is to liberally construe his filings. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1125 (10th Cir. 2010).
Additionally, Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite Ruling on Motion to Alter or Amend Judgments [Doc. No. 191] is DENIED AS MOOT.