ROBINSON v. COLQUITT EMC, 7:13-CV-92 (HL). (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20140416976
Visitors: 1
Filed: Mar. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER HUGH LAWSON, Senior District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 30) of this Court's refusal to order Defendant Colquitt EMC to conduct an expensive, time-consuming electronic search for certain words on its employees' cell phones and computers. The Court denied Plaintiff's request after a telephone conference on these matters on March 3, 2014. The motion for reconsideration is denied. Plaintiff moves the Court for reconsideration of its decision purs
Summary: ORDER HUGH LAWSON, Senior District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 30) of this Court's refusal to order Defendant Colquitt EMC to conduct an expensive, time-consuming electronic search for certain words on its employees' cell phones and computers. The Court denied Plaintiff's request after a telephone conference on these matters on March 3, 2014. The motion for reconsideration is denied. Plaintiff moves the Court for reconsideration of its decision pursu..
More
ORDER
HUGH LAWSON, Senior District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 30) of this Court's refusal to order Defendant Colquitt EMC to conduct an expensive, time-consuming electronic search for certain words on its employees' cell phones and computers. The Court denied Plaintiff's request after a telephone conference on these matters on March 3, 2014. The motion for reconsideration is denied.
Plaintiff moves the Court for reconsideration of its decision pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). "The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact." In re Kellog, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999). "A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)) (internal punctuation omitted). Plaintiff does not present any new evidence or point the Court to any binding legal authority that would cause it to reconsider its decision. His motion is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
