United States v. Reichel, 14-cr-0298 (WMW/FLN). (2020)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20200312b22
Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 11, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 11, 2020
Summary: ORDER WILHELMINA M. WRIGHT , District Judge . Defendant Bryan S. Reichel filed a motion seeking reconsideration of this Court's February 11, 2020 Order, which denied Reichel's motions to compel. (Dkt. 287.) A party is not permitted to file a motion to reconsider without first obtaining the district court's permission based on a showing of "compelling circumstances." LR 7.1(j). 1 "Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present n
Summary: ORDER WILHELMINA M. WRIGHT , District Judge . Defendant Bryan S. Reichel filed a motion seeking reconsideration of this Court's February 11, 2020 Order, which denied Reichel's motions to compel. (Dkt. 287.) A party is not permitted to file a motion to reconsider without first obtaining the district court's permission based on a showing of "compelling circumstances." LR 7.1(j). 1 "Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present ne..
More
ORDER
WILHELMINA M. WRIGHT, District Judge.
Defendant Bryan S. Reichel filed a motion seeking reconsideration of this Court's February 11, 2020 Order, which denied Reichel's motions to compel. (Dkt. 287.) A party is not permitted to file a motion to reconsider without first obtaining the district court's permission based on a showing of "compelling circumstances." LR 7.1(j).1 "Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to afford a party the "opportunity for relief in extraordinary circumstances." Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Saint Paul, 642 F.Supp.2d 902, 909 (D. Minn. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Reichel did not request permission to file a motion to reconsider. And Reichel has neither identified a manifest error of law or fact in the Court's February 11, 2020 Order, nor presented newly discovered evidence. Instead, Reichel repeats arguments that he previously made and the Court previously considered. For these reasons, the Court denies Reichel's motion.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing analysis and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Bryan S. Reichel's motion for reconsideration, (Dkt. 287), is DENIED.
FootNotes
1. Local Rule 7.1(j) appears in a section of the Local Rules applicable to "Civil Motion Practice," but Courts in this district have applied the same legal standard to reconsideration motions filed in criminal cases. See, e.g., United States v. Benjamin, No. 11-cr-0294, 2017 WL 1067742, at *2 (D. Minn. Mar. 22, 2017); United States v. Lockett, No. 03-cr-0088, 2014 WL 117468, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 13, 2014).
Source: Leagle
