Robinson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC, 17-CV-13128. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20190205b50
Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 40) GEORGE CARAM STEEH , District Judge . On January 17, 2019, this court affirmed Magistrate Judge Majzoub's order granting Defendant MGM Grand, LLC's motion to compel Plaintiff's responses to discovery. Now before the court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of that portion of this court's order affirming the imposition of costs and attorneys' fees incurred by Defendant in filing the motion to compel. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3)
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 40) GEORGE CARAM STEEH , District Judge . On January 17, 2019, this court affirmed Magistrate Judge Majzoub's order granting Defendant MGM Grand, LLC's motion to compel Plaintiff's responses to discovery. Now before the court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of that portion of this court's order affirming the imposition of costs and attorneys' fees incurred by Defendant in filing the motion to compel. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) p..
More
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 40)
GEORGE CARAM STEEH, District Judge.
On January 17, 2019, this court affirmed Magistrate Judge Majzoub's order granting Defendant MGM Grand, LLC's motion to compel Plaintiff's responses to discovery. Now before the court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of that portion of this court's order affirming the imposition of costs and attorneys' fees incurred by Defendant in filing the motion to compel. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) provides:
Generally, and without restricting the Court's discretion, the Court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.
Plaintiff argues, among other reasons, that the portion of this court's order awarding attorney fees and costs should be reversed because the Magistrate Judge did not order compliance with the original discovery requests, but ordered Plaintiff to respond to revised requests. Under these circumstances, and considering the vagaries of the law regarding discovery of social media activity, Plaintiff has demonstrated a palpable defect and Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 40) is GRANTED and Defendant's bill of costs (Doc. 30) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
