Opinion
Case No. 07-13991.
May 28, 2009
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This is an employment discrimination case. On April 27, 2009 (Dkt. 27) the Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. On May 07, 2009 (Dkt. 29), plaintiff filed a motion styled Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration Under Rule 59(E) and/Or Motion for Reconsideration Under Rule 60(B).
The motion is DENIED.
L.R. 7(g)(3) provides that a motion for reconsideration that presents the same issue ruled on by the court either expressly or by reasonable implication will not be granted. It further provides that the moving party must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled, but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. This plaintiff has not done.
Plaintiff's affidavit relating to his conversation with Williams was filed March 03, 2009. Plaintiff was earlier deposed on March 04, 2008. In his deposition, Plaintiff made no mention of the conversation. The deposition was a comprehensive inquiry with regard to plaintiff's version of the facts. A contradictory affidavit filed subsequent to a deposition has no relevance. The temporal relationship between Michalowicz's involvement in plaintiff's EEOC charge and his involvement in plaintiff's discharge is too attenuated to allow for an inference that there is a relationship between the two.
SO ORDERED.
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record on this date, May 28, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.