Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-2516, SECTION "T" (2).
July 15, 2003.
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration filed on behalf of the Defendant, Drug Transport, Inc. The Court, having reviewed the memorandum submitted by the Defendant and the Plaintiff's Opposition, the record, and the applicable law, is fully advised of the premises and is ready to rule.
ORDER AND REASONS
I. BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff Sammie Minnifield was an employee of Drug Transport, Inc. (DTI). On July 20, 2001, the Plaintiff was terminated by DTI for the following alleged violations of DTI's rules of conduct: A-4 (verbal altercation with a customer), A-5 (refusal to comply with a supervisor's instructions), and A-7 (failure to comply with a federal, state, local or company safety policy and/or procedures). The Plaintiff is an African-American male and, after termination, he brought a claim for discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and various Louisiana State laws. The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and it was granted on May 23, 2003. The Defendant filed the present Motion based on that Order and Final Judgment.
II. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:
A. Arguments of Drug Transport in Support of Motion for Reconsideration:
The Defendant argues that the Court should reconsider the May 23, 2003 Final Judgment and amend the Judgment to award the Defendant, as the prevailing party, its taxable costs and expenses. The Plaintiff has failed to file, other than the Complaint, any meaningful pleadings or otherwise prosecute his case. While the Defendant has followed all Court orders and schedules, the Plaintiff never served Defendant with his Initial Disclosures; never adequately responded to Defendant's First Interrogatories and Document Requests; Plaintiff failed to oppose the Defendant's Motion to Compel; Plaintiff never adequately responded to Defendant's discovery requests and has failed to pay Defendant's attorneys's fees as ordered by MJ Wilkinson in his April 16, 2003 Order. Due to the Plaintiff's failure to prosecute the case, the Defendant was forced to file an Extension of certain deadlines. . . . Basically, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the rules of Court as well as the Court's Order issued in its November 19, 2002 Preliminary Conference; the Court's March 14, 2003 Order; and the Court's April 16, 2003 Order. The Plaintiff likewise failed to take any depositions or conduct any meaningful discovery throughout the case. The Plaintiff and his counsel were in fact forty-five minutes late in attending Plaintiff's deposition at Plaintiff's counsel's office. Additionally, Plaintiff failed to provide responses or timely objections of any sort or in any form to several of the Defendant's First Interrogatories or Document Requests as ordered by the Court's April 16, 2003 Order. The Plaintiff was unable to establish even a prima facie case of racial discrimination and has caused the Defendant inordinate time and expense on the non-meritorious claim. The Defendant, therefore, submits that the Court's May 23, 2003 Final Judgment ordering each party to bear its own costs is a manifest error of law and results in manifest injustice.
B. Arguments of Sammie Minnifield in Opposition:
The Plaintiff argues that it would be unjust for the Court to force the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's attorneys' fees. The Defendants chose to enlist counsel in Atlanta, GA and New Orleans, LA. The Plaintiff argues that, should the Court grant the Motion, the Plaintiff would only be subjected to further hardship.
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS:
A. Law on Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment:
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that any party may file a motion to alter or amend a judgment within ten business days after its entry. See Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 59. Under Rule 59, a district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying such a motion. Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990); First Commonweatlh Corp. v. Hibernia Nat. Bank of New Orleans, 891 F. Supp. 290 (E.D.La. 1995), amended 896 F. Supp. 634, affirmed 85 F.3d 622. There are certain grounds upon which a Court may grant a Rule 59 motion for reconsideration or to alter or amend the judgment, for example: (1) intervening change in the controlling law has occurred, (2) evidence not previously available becomes available, or (3) it is necessary to correct clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth Advertising Pub. Corp. 825 F. Supp. 1216 (N.J. 1993). Courts in this district hold that a moving party must satisfy at least one of the following criteria to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion: (1) the motion is necessary to correct a manifest error of fact or law; (2) the movant presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest injustice; and (4) the motion is justified by an intervening change in the controlling law. Craig v. U.S. Postal Service, 2002 WL 31319937 (E.D.La. 2002); See also Fidelity Deposit Co. of Md. v. Omni Bank, 1999 WL 970526, 3 (E.D.La. 1999); Jupiter v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 1999 WL 796218, 1 (E.D.La. 1999); Burma Navigation Corp. v. M/V Reliant Seahorse, 1998 WL 781587, 1 (E.D.La. 1998).
It is important to note that amendment of a judgment is an "extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly and should not be used to relitigate old matters, raise new arguments, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Lafargue v. Jefferson Parish, No. 98-3185, 2000 WL 174899, 1 (E.D.La., Feb. 11, 2000). A court's reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy, which should be used sparingly. Marzoni v. Hyatt Corp., 2002 WL 31319941 (E.D.La. 2002); See Fields v. Pool Offshore, Inc., 1998 WL 43217, 2 (E.D.La. 1998), aff'd, 182 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 1999); Bardwell v. George G. Sharp, Inc., 1995 WL 517120, 1 (E.D.La. 1995). The court must "strike the proper balance between the need for finality and the need to render a just decision on the basis of all the facts ." Edward H. Bohlin Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993).
B. The Court's Analysis:
The Defendant has failed to carry his burden as established in Craig. Id. As the remedy of reconsideration should be used sparingly, the Defendant has not proven that there is either a manifest error of law or fact in the Court's May 23, 2003 Judgment or that the alteration or amendment is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. While the performance of Plaintiff's counsel may be questionable, it would not further the interest of justice to penalize the Plaintiff. The Court hereby denies the Defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment entered on May 23, 2003.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment entered on behalf of the Defendant, Drug Transport, Inc., be and the same is hereby DENIED.