Opinion
Civ. No. 98-1803(2), SECTION "L".
February 3, 2000.
Before the Court is plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
Donahue moves to alter or amend the judgment entered by the Court on January 6, 2000 in favor of Occidental Chemical Corp. ("Occidental"). Plaintiff's motion is properly filed under Rule 59(e) because it was received on January 20, 2000, within ten days of the entry of the judgment. When a period of time prescribed by a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is fewer than eleven days, Rule 6 requires that the Court exclude Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays from the computation of the time elapsed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Because Donahue submitted his motion within ten weekdays of the Court's ruling, the Court will consider the motion a Rule 59 request. See Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding that a motion to alter or amend a judgment served within ten days of the judgment falls under Rule 59(e) while a motion made after ten days fall under Rule 60(b)), abrogated on other grounds, Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 n. 14 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
Rule 59(e) affords the Court significant discretion when deciding whether to alter or amend its judgment. Id. at 174. The Court has discretion, although not unlimited, to balance the need for finality against the need for justice by considering several factors. Id.
The Court should consider among other things, the reasons for the moving party's default, the importance of the omitted evidence to the moving party's case, whether the evidence was available to the non-movant before she responded to the summary judgment motion, and the likelihood that the nonmoving party will suffer unfair prejudice if the case is reopened.Id. The need for justice generally favors a Rule 59(e) motion only when the moving party demonstrates a mistake of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable. See Stephens v. Witco Corp., 1998 WL 426214, at *1 (E.D.L.A. July 24, 1998). The Court may also consider whether a new trial is required to "prevent manifest injustice." See Tauzier v. Dodge, 1998 WL 458184, at *1 (E.D.L.A. Aug. 4, 1998). A Rule 59(e) motion, however, cannot be used to relitigate issues with new arguments that could and should have been presented before the judgment was rendered. See Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990); Tauzier, 1998 WL 458184, at *1.
Donahue argues in his motion that he has been denied access to data, depositions, and records that he requested during discovery. The record does not support Donahue's contention. During the prosecution of this case Mr. Donahue has been represented by at least three attorneys. His various attorneys had the opportunity to proceed with discovery and to bring to this court's attention any failure by Occidental to produce relevant documents or witnesses. If Occidental engaged in inappropriate behavior during the discovery period the proper procedure would have been for Donahue's counsel to file a motion with this Court to compel discovery. It is inappropriate to use a motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) as a vehicle to remedy perceived deficiencies in the discovery process.
Specifically, Donahue argues that Occidental's counsel was unwilling to negotiate a date or time to depose Dr. Charles Freed. Dr. Freed was at no time an employee of Occidental and thus it had no obligation or ability to produce him for a deposition. Moreover, Donahue has failed to demonstrate how the information allegedly withheld during the discovery period would demonstrate either a mistake of law or fact. Donahue fails to establish that there has been a mistake of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, or that a new trial is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Therefore, plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment is DENIED.
MINUTE ENTRY FEBRUARY 1, 2000 SCHWARTZ, J.