United States District Court, D. Kansas
RANDALL H. RUSSELL, Plaintiff,
KIEWIT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
P. O'Hara U.S. Magistrate Judge
court entered an amended scheduling order on March 19, 2019
(ECF No. 34), which, in part, stated that “discovery on
ESI issues, which the parties agree shall be completed before
plaintiff's deposition, must be commenced or served in
time to be completed by May 1, 2019.” As part of the
ongoing discovery disputes in this case, on May 13, 2019,
plaintiff filed a motion to compel supplemental ESI discovery
responses (ECF No. 42). The court denied the motion to compel
(ECF No. 49). Plaintiff has filed a motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 50) of the court's order.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for clarification (ECF No.
51) of the scheduling order, to address the timing and
sequence of ESI discovery. The court denies plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration and expedites briefing deadlines
for the motion for clarification to timely resolve this
for reconsideration may be granted only if the moving party
can establish: “(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.” The decision whether to grant or deny a
motion for reconsideration is committed to the court's
discretion. A motion for reconsideration should not be
used to “rehash previously rejected arguments or to
offer new legal theories or facts.” Such a motion
“is not a second chance for the losing party to make
its strongest case or to dress up arguments that previously
failed.” A motion for reconsideration is “not
appropriate to revisit issues already
relies on the third prong of this standard and argues that
the court's order reflects clear error and manifest
injustice. Plaintiff insinuates that, because certain
exhibits were not referenced in the court's June 4, 2019
order, the exhibits were “overlooked or
misunderstood” in the court's
analysis. The court assures plaintiff that it
reviewed the parties' briefing in full and found that
defendants have reasonably complied with plaintiff's
discovery requests. Plaintiff's motion then revisits
previous arguments, including the proportionality of his
request for his entire .pst file, defendants' method of
searching for and producing documents, and the allegation
that defendants are impermissibly withholding responsive
documents. These arguments have been presented the
court and therefore reconsideration is not appropriate on
plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 50) is denied. The court
declines plaintiff's request for hearing, as the parties
have fulsomely briefed this issue.
has also filed a motion for clarification (ECF No. 51) of the
amended scheduling order related to the timing for the
completion of discovery pertaining to ESI issues. Defendant
shall file any response to plaintiff's motion by June 12,
2019, limited to two pages, and plaintiff shall file any
reply by June 13, 2019, limited to one page.
 ECF No. 34.
 D. Kan. Rule 7.3. See also
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012
(10th Cir. 2000).
Wright ex rel. Trust Co. of Kan.
v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 259 F.3d 1226, 1235-36 (10th Cir.