United States District Court, D. Kansas
RANDALL A. and AMY L. SCHNEIDER, Plaintiffs,
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., et al., Defendants.
Gary Sebelius U.S. Magistrate Judge
matter comes before the court upon defendant Primerica
Financial Services Home Mortgages, Inc.'s
(“Primerica's”) Motion for Reconsideration of
ECF 477 and Stay of Deposition Deadline and Related Events
under ECF 477(ECF No. 478). For the following reasons, this
motion is denied.
seeks reconsideration of the court's order of June 29,
2017. In that order, the court ordered a second Primerica
Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) deposition on three topics and required
Primerica to pay the travel costs of plaintiffs' counsel
to take the deposition and the costs of the court reporter.
In this motion, Primerica asks the court to direct that the
three topics be addressed by the stipulation that has been
presented to plaintiffs.
court will not belabor this order with the background of this
litigation as the parties are quite familiar with it. The
court will move quickly to consideration of the motion for
Rule 7.3(b) governs motions to reconsider non-dispositive
orders, while Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60
govern motions to reconsider dispositive
orders. Here, the court's opinion ordering a
second Primerica deposition is non-dispositive, as it was not
a decision on the merits that resolved plaintiffs' claims
in the case. Therefore, the court considers defendant's
motion to reconsider under D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b).
D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b), grounds warranting a motion to
reconsider include: (1) an intervening change in controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice. A motion to reconsider allows the court to
“correct manifest errors of law or fact and to review
newly discovered evidence.” A motion to reconsider is
available when the court has “misapprehended the facts,
a party's position, or the controlling
law.” Such a motion does not permit a party to
“revisit issues already addressed or to advance
arguments that could have been raised in prior
briefing.” A party's failure to present its
strongest case in the first instance does not entitle it to a
second chance in the form of a motion to
reconsider. Whether to grant a motion to reconsider is
left to the court's discretion.
support of this motion, Primerica argues that the use of the
proposed stipulation is a “streamlined and effective
means” for plaintiffs to receive the information
responsive to the three topics. Primerica suggests that this
procedure would save time, cost, and likely motion practice
relating to the second deposition. Primerica asserts that the
factors required by Rule 7.3(b) are present here.
court finds no need to waste judicial resources in deciding
this motion. While Primerica's motion has some merit, the
court does not find that it meets the standards required by
D.Kan. 7.3(b). The court has continuously suggested to
counsel that they should work together to accomplish
discovery in a timely and cost-effective manner. The solution
offered by Primerica does comply with the court's prior
requests. Nevertheless, the stipulations offered by Primerica
are not a basis for reconsideration. Primerica has failed to
offer any authority for such a position, and the court is
unable to find any such authority. Primerica could have
offered this solution prior to the scheduled deposition but
failed to do so. Thus, Primerica's motion shall be
parties shall immediately proceed to complete the Primerica
deposition by January 12, 2018. As noted in the prior order,
the scheduling of this deposition and the details concerning
it should be addressed and handled by counsel for the
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant
Primerica Financial Services Home Mortgages, Inc.'s
Motion for Reconsideration of ECF 477 and Stay of Deposition
Deadline and Related Events under ECF 477 (ECF No. 478) is
denied. The parties shall immediately proceed to complete the
Primerica deposition by January 12, 2018.
IS SO ORDERED.
 In response to Primerica's motion,
plaintiffs sought reconsideration of another matter in the
court's prior order. This request is ...