Opinion
Case No. 10-1012-EFM
07-23-2012
KRISTOFER THOMAS KASTNER, Plaintiff, v. INTRUST BANK, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On May 31, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's various motions to compel. (Memorandum and Order, Doc. 139). This matter is before the court on plaintiff's "motion for reconsideration on discovery." (Doc. 142).
The grounds for moving for reconsideration of a non-dispositive ruling are relatively narrow. D. Kan. Rule 7.3 provides that such a motion must be based on:
(1) an intervening change in controlling law;"Such motions are not appropriate if the movant only wants the court to revisit issues already addressed or to hear new arguments or supporting facts that could have been presented originally.'' Keys Youth Services v. City of Olathe, Kansas, 67 F. Supp.2d 1228, 1229 (D. Kan. 1999)(emphasis added).
(2) the availability of new evidence; or
(3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Plaintiff's motion and supporting arguments do not address the three grounds for seeking reconsideration listed in Rule 7.3. Instead, plaintiff reargues his requests for answers to certain interrogatories and the production of certain records. Under the circumstances, the court declines the invitation to reconsider the earlier ruling.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's "motion for reconsideration" (Doc. 142) is DENIED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 23rd day of July 2012.
______________________
KAREN M. HUMPHREYS
United States Magistrate Judge