Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-769.
September 21, 2004
ORDER AND OPINION
I. Introduction
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants coopted their invention — a unique employee benefits program — and disparaged Plaintiffs so that potential clients would obtain the program through Defendants, and not through Plaintiffs.
On June 30, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an extension of the discovery deadlines. Travelers Life and Annuity Co. ("Travelers") responded, and simultaneously filed a cross-motion to compel discovery responses to, among other items, Interrogatories No. 14-16. In my August 18, 2004, Order on defendant Travelers' motion to compel discovery, I directed Plaintiffs to answer Travelers' Interrogatory 14 in part, and Interrogatories No. 15 and 16 in full. Plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking reconsideration of this Order. As explained below, I will grant their motion in part and deny it in part.
II. Legal Principles
The standards controlling a motion for reconsideration are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(3) and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1. Kostar v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Company, Inc., Civ. A. No. 96-7130, 1998 WL 848116 at *2 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 1998); Vaidya v. Xerox Corporation, Civ. A. No. 97-547, 1997 WL 732464 at *1 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 1997). "The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence."Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985);Kostar, supra.
A motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise new arguments that could have been made in support of the original motion. Balogun v. Alden Park Management Corp., Civ. A. No. 98-0612, 1998 WL 962956 at *1 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 1998); Vaidya, supra at *2.
Generally, a motion for reconsideration will only be granted on one of the following three grounds: (1) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) new evidence, which was not previously available, has become available; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Kostar, supra; Vaidya, supra.
III. Discussion
1. Interrogatory No. 14 Describe in detail every occasion when a judge has praised or criticized you or your conduct in writing or otherwise on the record. Separately for each such occasion, identify any lawsuit involved; state the date of the occasion; describe the praise or criticism; and identify any Documents or things that refer or relate to the praise or criticism, including but not limited to any transcript or opinion (whether published or not) including the praise or criticism. Relevant Portion of August 18, 2004, Decision: I agree with Travelers that, despite Plaintiffs argument to the contrary, the information requested remains relevant to this action because of Plaintiff's general assertion that it was unable to market its product because of Defendants' actions. Travelers is entitled to explore the possibility that other reasons may have existed which would explain refusals to deal with Plaintiffs. I will therefore direct Plaintiffs to answer this Interrogatory within seven days of the date of this Order, except that they need only provide information as to praise or criticism which has not been published. Travelers can easily obtain published legal materials from legal research sources.
In their Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiffs argue that Interrogatory No. 16 is overbroad and burdensome. They argue that it is impossible to know what to list, asking: when a judge decides against Koresko's position, is that to be considered criticism? If a higher court overturns that judge, is this praise?
This argument was not set forth in Koresko's response to Travelers' Motion to Compel. As alluded to in the portion of my Opinion set forth above, Plaintiffs instead argued that the material sought by the interrogatory was no longer relevant because they had dropped a count for slander from their Complaint. As noted, a motion for reconsideration is not to be used to raise new arguments after the original argument fails.Balogun, supra; Vaidya, supra. Therefore, I need not consider this argument.
In any event, the Interrogatory is not as broad and burdensome as Plaintiffs maintain. Plaintiffs are not, as they claim, being asked to parse every judge's decision, or interpret their body language. Travelers points to an explicit criticism of Koresko in a case called Daniels v. Bursey, No. 03 C 1550, 2004 WL 1144046 (No. D. Ill. May 19, 2004). Without reference to the actual contents of Daniels, I note that this is the sort of direct comment which is sought by the Interrogatory.
It should be noted, as well, that I have directed Plaintiffs to produce only that material which is unpublished, leaving it to Travelers to discover published material like Daniels. Limited in this way, the Interrogatory is not unduly burdensome.
2. Interrogatory No. 15
Describe in detail every occasion on which a complaint about you has been sent to or considered by any legal, accounting, or other professional disciplinary board or other disciplinary entity. Separately for each such occasion, state the date of the complaint and any disciplinary inquiries or other proceedings; identify the disciplinary board or other entity involved, identify any opinions, correspondence or other documents related to such inquiries or proceedings; if the complaint relates to a litigation, state the name of the judge, case name and number, identify opposing counsel and describe the resolution of the matter.
Relevant Portion of August 18, 2004, Opinion: As with Interrogatory No. 14, this interrogatory seeks material which is relevant to Plaintiff's claim that Traveler's actions caused it a loss of business. For the same reason I have stated with respect to Interrogatory No. 14, I will direct Plaintiffs to respond to this Interrogatory within seven days of the date of this Order.
Although Plaintiffs ask that my decision regarding Interrogatory No. 15 be vacated, they do not discuss it in their supporting memorandum, except in that they have asked for a five-year lime limit with respect to all three interrogatories. I do not, however, believe a time limit is warranted here. I note, moreover, that the interrogatory is not broad, and it does not appear that compliance would be unduly burdensome.
3. Interrogatory No. 16
Identify every lawsuit in which you have been involved as a party, counsel or witness.
Relevant Portion of August 18, 2004, Opinion: For the reasons set forth above with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 15, I will direct Plaintiffs to answer this Interrogatory within seven days of the date of this Order. Lawsuits should be identified by caption, docket number and court.
Plaintiffs argue that they will suffer manifest injustice if they are required to compile such a list, because Koresko, an attorney, has been involved in so many cases. They maintain that Koresko "has been involved in more than one thousand cases, represented countless clients, and been involved in thousands of court hearings." They also maintain that his computer hard drive crashed in 1999, wiping out business records before that date.
In the affidavit he submitted in support of his Motion for Reconsideration, Koresko has written: "I estimate that it would take me approximately five weeks, working eight hours a day, five days a week with at least four other people, to compile a complete list of every case that I have been involved with during the past 20 years." Affidavit of John Koresko at ¶ 14.
Upon reconsideration of my prior Order, and in order to prevent a manifest injustice, I will further limit Plaintiffs' obligation under this interrogatory to require production of only the caption, docket number and court for (a) all cases concerning the invention which is at issue in this case; (b) all cases for which Koresko possesses records, or of which he is aware, in which he provided expert testimony on taxation; and (c) all other cases for which Koresko possesses records, or of which he is aware, from 1999 to date.
For the reasons that follow, I now enter the following:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's August 18, 2004, Order, docketed as Document No. 50 and Defendant's response thereto, I hereby ORDER that the motion is
GRANTED in that Plaintiffs' answer to Interrogatory No. 16 is limited to production of only the caption, docket number and court for (a) all cases concerning the invention which is at issue in this case; (b) all cases for which Koresko possesses records, or of which he is aware, in which he provided expert testimony on taxation; and (c) all other cases for which Koresko possesses records, or of which he is aware, from 1999 to date.
The motion is otherwise DENIED.