Opinion
Case No. 01-40122-01
May 9, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case comes before the court on defendant's motion for reconsideration of this court's order filed March 18, 2002, relating to disclosure of information regarding certain confidential informants. In that order, the court required the government to produce certain information regarding a deceased confidential informant, but did not require the government to produce the requested information regarding another confidential informant who all parties agreed had not participated in any of the charged offenses. Defendant takes issue with this latter ruling, and seeks to compel the government to disclose the requested information as to all confidential informants.
The standards for motions to reconsider in criminal cases were clarified by this court in United States v. D'Armond, 80 F. Supp.2d 1157 (D.Kan. 1999), in stating:
Rarely do parties in criminal proceedings file motions to reconsider rulings on pretrial motions. This court believes that the standards for evaluating a motion to reconsider in the civil context are relevant for evaluating a motion to reconsider in a criminal case. "A motion to reconsider shall be based on (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) availability of new evidence, or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." D.Kan. Rule 7.3. "A motion to reconsider is not a second chance for the losing party to make its strongest case or to dress up arguments that previously failed." Voelkel v. General Motors Corp., 846 F. Supp. 1482, 1483 (D.Kan.), aff'd, 43 F.3d 1484, 1994 WL 708220 (10th Cir. Dec. 21, 1994) (table).
A court's rulings "are not intended as first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure." Quaker Alloy Casting v. Gulfco Industries, Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D.Ill. 1988). A motion to reconsider is appropriate if the court has obviously misapprehended a party's position, the facts, or applicable law, or if the party produces new evidence that could not have been obtained through the exercise of due diligence. Comeau v. Rupp, 810 F. Supp. 1172, 1175 (D.Kan. 1992); see Refrigeration Sales Co. Inc. v. Mitchell-Jackson, Inc., 605 F. Supp. 6, 7 (N.D.Ill. 1983), aff'd, 770 F.2d 98 (7th Cir. 1985). A motion to reconsider is 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. Comeau v. Rupp, 810 F. Supp. at 1175. Koch v. Koch Industries, Inc., 6 F. Supp.2d 1207, 1209 (D.Kan. 1998). The decision whether to grant or deny a motion to reconsider is committed to the court's sound discretion. Hancock v. City of Oklahoma City, 857 F.2d 1394, 1395 (10th Cir. 1988).Id., at 1170-71.
The defendant's motion to reconsider is untimely and is nothing but a request for the court to revisit the same issues previously rejected. On this basis alone, the defendant's motion to reconsider is denied. Believing that its prior order was correctly decided, the court will nevertheless briefly address the point raised in the defendant's motion to reconsider.
Defendant shows the court nothing new in alleging that a second informant was involved in the investigation which led to three of the charged offenses. The court's conclusion remains correct that the transactions which gave rise to the relevant counts (5-7) were made solely by law enforcement officers without the presence of any confidential informant. Given the undisputed law the court need not require disclosure when the confidential informant "did not participate in the illegal activity or when information sought is cumulative" United States v. Leahy, 47 F.3d 396, 398 (10th Cir. 1995), or when the informant is not a participant or witness to the crime, United States v. Brantley, 986 F.2d 379, 383 (10th Cir. 1993), or when the informant is a mere tipster, United States v. Wynne, 993 F.2d 760, 766 (10th Cir. 1993), disclosure will not be required.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion for reconsideration (Dk. 28) is denied.