Sunrise Opportunities, Inc. v. Regier

7 Citing cases

  1. Fenner v. Kallis

    Case No. 1:17-cv-01392-MMM (C.D. Ill. Sep. 28, 2018)

    A similar showing is required in order to succeed on a motion brought pursuant to Rule 52(b). See, e.g., Sunrise Opportunities, Inc. v. Regier, 2006 WL 581150, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2006) (citing Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of General Motors Corp., 51 F. 3d 746, 749 (7th Cir. 1995)). The Petitioner does not allege any newly discovered evidence.

  2. Lundeen v. Rhoad

    No. 1:14-cv-00547-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind. Dec. 30, 2014)

    Hence, "a judgment is a final decision of the district court." Sunrise Opportunities, Inc. v. Regier, No. 05 C 2825, 2006 WL 581150, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2006) (emphasis added). Certain exceptions to this rule exist.

  3. Censke v. United States

    No. 09 C 3651 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 29, 2014)

    A similar showing is required on a motion to amend a district court's findings of fact or conclusions of law under Rule 52(b). See, e.g., Sunrise Opportunities, Inc. v. Regier, 2006 WL 581150, at *4 (N.D. Ill. 2006). A motion to reconsider is not a vehicle for advancing arguments or theories that "could and should have been made" prior to judgment, United States v. Resnick, 594 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2010).

  4. Davis v. Carmel Clay Sch.

    No. 1:11-cv-00771-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind. May. 17, 2013)   Cited 6 times
    In Davis, the court held that a witness who, like here, had been disclosed as a testifying expert but had not yet produced a report could be redesignated as a consulting expert.

    In general, district courts around the county have held that where a party changes an expert witness's designation, that expert cannot be subject to discovery absent a showing of "exceptional circumstances" pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(D). See Sunrise Opportunities, Inc. v. Regier, 05-c-2825, 2006 WL 581150 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2006) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) advisory committee notes (1970) and noting that Rule 26(b)(4)(A) applies to experts who will be called at witnesses to trial to provide for effective cross-examination, but that no similar reason exists to depose non-testifying experts); Estate of Manship v. U.S., 240 F.R.D. 229, 237 (M.D. La. 2006) (allowing work product/consultative privilege to be restored where testifying expert witness' designation is withdrawn prior to the issuance of expert reports/opinions and the party reserved the right to amend expert designations); Callaway Golf Co. v. Dunlop Slazenger Group Americas, Inc., No. Civ. A. 01-669(MPT), 2002 WL 1906628 (D. Del. Aug. 14, 2002) (collecting cases and finding that "[a] common theme is apparent throughout the cases reviewed from various jurisdictions - the conversion of an expert designated for trial purposes under Rule 26(b)(4)(A), to a consulting expert, under Rule 26(b)(4)(B) is allowed and results in insulating that expert from

  5. Cottrell v. Dewalt Industrial Tool Co.

    09 cv 5306 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 29, 2009)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Cottrell, the court was also influenced by the inspecting party’s intention to document the tangible item’s condition both before and after the inspection.

    The purpose of Rule 26(b)(4)(B) is "to promote fairness by precluding unreasonable access to an opposing party's diligent trial preparation." Sunrise Opportunities, Inc. v. Regier, 2006 WL 581150, *7 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2006) (citation omitted). Plaintiff cites no other case law or authority in support of his position.

  6. Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Transgroup Express

    264 F.R.D. 382 (N.D. Ill. 2009)   Cited 9 times

    See, e.g., Burkybile v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 2006 WL 2325506 (N.D.Ill. Aug.2, 2006); Sunrise Opportunities, Inc. v. Regier, 2006 WL 581150 (N.D.Ill. Mar.7, 2006); Spearman Indus., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 128 F.Supp.2d 1148 (N.D.Ill.2001); Hartford v. Pure Air On The Lake Ltd. P'ship., 154 F.R.D. 202 (N.D.Ind.1993).

  7. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Custom

    Case Nos. 02 C 3768, 03 C 2293 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 21, 2007)   Cited 3 times

    A court may grant a Rule 52(b) or 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment if the movant presents newly discovered evidence that was not available at the time of trial or points to evidence in the record that clearly establishes a manifest error of law or fact." Sunrise Opportunities, Inc. v. Regier, 2006 WL 581150 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2006). Neither motion may be used to advance arguments that could and should have been made before the court rendered a judgment nor to present evidence that was available earlier.