The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CLYDE DISEDARE, CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff
VERSUS NO. 22-2680
SGT. COLTER BRUMFIELD, ET AL., SECTION: “E” (2)
Defendants
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Leave
of Court to File Supplemental Exhibits in Support of Opposition Memorandum.1
Defendants have filed a response in opposition,2 and Plaintiff has replied.3
Generally, the courts in this district evaluate a motion to reconsider an
interlocutory order under the same standards as those governing a motion to alter or
amend a final judgment brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.4
A motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure “must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present
newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and
should, have been made before the judgment issued.”5
In deciding motions under the Rule 59(e) standards, the courts in this district have
considered the following factors:
1 R. Doc. 87.
2 R. Doc. 93.
3 R. Doc. 97.
4 Castrillo v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. CIV.A. 09-4369 R, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4 (E.D. La.
Apr. 5, 2010) (“The general practice of this court has been to evaluate motions to reconsider interlocutory
orders under the same standards that govern Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend a final judgment.”).
5 Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
(1) whether the movant demonstrates the motion is necessary to correct
manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based;
(2)whether the movant presents new evidence;
(3) whether the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest injustice;
and
(4)whether the motion is justified by an intervening change in the
controlling law.6
The Court finds that none of these factors favors reconsideration in this case.
Plaintiff’s argument is that the deposition excerpts represent new evidence, but in fact,
the evidence is not new. As the Court previously noted, these depositions were conducted
before Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition was filed.7 Although the transcripts were not
delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel until after the Response in Opposition was filed,8 the
contents of the depositions were known prior to that time, and Plaintiff’s counsel could
have included a summary of deponents’ statements in the Response in Opposition and
sought leave to supplement once the transcripts were received. Because counsel did not
do that, the Motion for Leave of Court to File Supplemental Exhibits in Support of
Opposition Memorandum9 and subsequent motion for reconsideration10 ask this Court to
permit Plaintiff to submit exhibits out of time without good cause.
6 Castrillo, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4. The Court notes that the time limits of Rule 59 do not apply in this
matter because the order appealed is interlocutory. Rules 59 and 60 set forth deadlines for seeking
reconsideration of final judgments. See Carter v. Farmers Rice Milling Co., Inc., 33 F. App’x 704 (5th Cir.
2002); Lightfoot, 2012 WL 711842, at *2.
7 See R. Doc. 85.
8 R. Doc. 87 at p. 1.
9 R. Doc. 81.
10 R. Doc. 87.
Plaintiff does not present new evidence, reconsideration is not necessary to
prevent manifest injustice," and there has been no intervening change in the controlling
law. Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of October, 2023.
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11 Plaintiff appears to argue reconsideration is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice, and, in support,
Plaintiff represents that Defendant Brumfield “testified . . . that it was a violation of [Plaintiffs]
constitutional rights [] to conduct a body cavity search without a basis in probable cause or reasonable
suspicion” and Defendant Williams testified “it is a violation of constitutional rights to use security
measures to humiliate, aggravate or infringe on the privacy of an inmate.” (R. Doc. 81 at p. 1.) Plaintiff has
overstated the importance of the witnesses’ testimony. (See R. Doc. 81-2; Exs. to R. Doc. 87.) Both testified
about hypothetical violations of “abstract rights.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987). But to
overcome a defense of qualified immunity, a Plaintiff must show “that the right the official is alleged to have
violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized .. . sense: The contours of the right
must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that
right.” Id. at 640. The proffered deposition excerpts alone do not overcome the defense of qualified
immunity.