Filed: Feb. 05, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 05, 2020
Summary: ORDER CATHY BISSOON , District Judge . This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72. On February 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration, ("Motion for Reconsideration," Doc. 122), asking the Court to reconsider its January 7, 2020 Order, (Doc. 114), denying his Motion for a court order for his prior medical
Summary: ORDER CATHY BISSOON , District Judge . This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72. On February 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration, ("Motion for Reconsideration," Doc. 122), asking the Court to reconsider its January 7, 2020 Order, (Doc. 114), denying his Motion for a court order for his prior medical ..
More
ORDER
CATHY BISSOON, District Judge.
This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72.
On February 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration, ("Motion for Reconsideration," Doc. 122), asking the Court to reconsider its January 7, 2020 Order, (Doc. 114), denying his Motion for a court order for his prior medical records, (Doc. 113). For the reasons below, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.
"A judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence . . .; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). After careful review of the arguments raised in the Motion for Reconsideration, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to present any valid grounds for altering or reconsidering its previous order.
Specifically, the Motion for Reconsideration urges the Court—once again—that the medical records Plaintiff requested be subpoenaed are very important. The Court has already rejected this argument, in part because it accepts that Plaintiff has a history of very serious mental health issues. (See Docs. 66, 114.) No additional information regarding this history is relevant to the Court.
Rather, Plaintiff presented evidence that a court order was required for an evaluation of his current mental health conditions and limitations, (Doc. 104-1), which are of interest to the undersigned. (See Docs. 66 at 3-4, 109; 114.) The Court has given Plaintiff what he has asked for, and it will not go further and authorize the undertaking of an unnecessary fishing expedition through his medical records and life history.
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. 122), is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
