The opinion
On Petition for Rehearing.
This cause is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion for a rehearing on the defendants’ motion for a dismissal, which the Court treated as a motion for a summary judgment, or in the alternative for an order supplementing the record with an affidavit tendered with said motion. The motion was served on the 21st day of September, 1966, which would be the *747 thirteenth day following the entry of the judgment of dismissal.
Rule 59(a) and (b), 1 F.R.Civ.P., fixes the grounds and the time within which a motion for a new trial may be served in either a trial by jury or a trial by the Court.
It has been uniformly held that a petition for a rehearing is, under these rules, in all respects the same as a motion for a new trial. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Coe, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 19 , 136 F.2d 771 , 148 A.L.R. 782 (1943); Slater v. Peyser, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 314 , 200 F.2d 360 (1952); American Oil Co. v. Carey, 246 F.Supp. 773 (E.D.Mich.S.D.1965).
On the showing before me, I find no mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect nor any other reason which might justify relief under Rule 60(b), F.R.Civ.P. . Certainly, I cannot find that the interests of justice require a rehearing. Sternstein v. “Italia”-Societa Per Azioni Di Navigazione-Genoa, 275 F.2d 502 (2d Cir. 1960). For that matter, Rule 60(b) is not intended to serve the same purposes as Rule 59. John E. Smith’s Sons Co. v. Lattimer Foundry & Mach. Co., 19 F.R.D. 379 (D.C.), aff’d 239 F.2d 815 (3d Cir. 1956).
Aside from the legal roadblock which may be presented by the requirements of Rule 59(a) and (b), the record reveals that counsel for both parties, at the time of submission, stated that the Court had before it all of the evidence on liability that might be presented at the time of trial The record shows that I viewed the films on February 22nd, the last memorandum being received before mid-March, 1966. The opinion and order of dismissal were dated September 8, 1966. Counsel offers no reasonable explanation as to why the additional material could not have been supplied, either before or after submission, or in the lengthy period in which the Court had the matter under submission. I must, therefore, exercise my discretion against granting a rehearing or permitting the plaintiff to supplement the record.
For that matter, I seriously question if the tendered affidavit presents evidence which would, in any way, alter my original opinion.
The motion for a rehearing, and the alternative to supplement the record, is denied.
It is so ordered.
. Rule 59(a) and (b) provides as follows:
“(a) Grounds. A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues (1) in an action in which there has been a trial by jury, for any of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts of the United States; and (2) in an action tried without a jury, for any of the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity in the courts of the United States. On a motion for a new trial in an action tried without a jury, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new findings and conclusions, and direct the entry of a new judgment.”
“(b) Time for Motion. A motion for a new trial shall be served not later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment. * * * ”