Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-CV-73973-DT.
January 30, 2006
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO [SIC] RECONSIDERATION
Before this Court is Plaintiff's Motion to [sic] Reconsideration, filed on December 20, 2005. Plaintiff asks this Court to reconsider its ruling of December 8, 2005 following a hearing on Defendant's Motion Seeking Overdue Discovery and for Sanctions. Plaintiff further requests oral argument on his motion. The Court's Order Granting Defendant's Motion Seeking Overdue Discovery and Denying Defendant's Motion for Sanctions was entered on December 20, 2005.
E.D. Mich LR 7.1(g)(2) reads:
No Response and No Hearing Allowed. No response to the motion and no oral argument are permitted unless the court orders otherwise.
The Court declines to order Defendants to file a response and further declines to order oral argument. Plaintiff's request for oral argument is therefore DENIED.
E.D. Mich LR 7.1(g)(3) states unequivocally that the moving party must demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled as well as a showing that by correcting the defect, a different result will follow in the court's disposition of the motion. Plaintiff's brief fails to establish any grounds on which this Court should reverse its written Order of December 20, 2005. Plaintiff merely recites that he failed to attend the hearing of the December 8, 2005 motion because he checked into the wrong court room and remained there until after the hearing of the subject motion was concluded. Plaintiff then explains that he has complied with all but two of the discovery requests. Neither argument is a sufficient basis for this Court to reconsider its ruling or to allow a new hearing.
Plaintiff's Motion to [sic] Reconsideration is Denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.