Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00300-JJF Document 166-5 Filed O2/14/2007 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT D

2005 WL 65421 _ Pri e 1 of2
Oiase 1:05-cv-00300-JJF Document 166-5 Filed 02/14/2007 Page 2 ofc§
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 3654213 (D.DeI.)
Motions,. .Plea.d.i.n.g.s..and .E.i.l.i.n.gs
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court,
D. Delaware.
Gerald A. LECHLITER, Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendant.
No. Civ.A. 03—1016—KAJ.
Aug. 24, 2005.
Gerald A. Lechliter, Lewes, DE, pro se.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM ORDER
JORDAN, J.
*1 Pro se plaintiff Gerald A. Lechliter ("P|aintiff") has filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Docket Item
["D.I."] 30; "Plaintiff's Motion") of the Memorandum Opinion (D.I.28) and Order (D.I.29) issued in
this case on June 15, 2005. Plaintiff also seeks leave to submit a reply to the opposition filed by the
Department of Defense ("Defendant") to his Motion (D.I.32). I have considered the Motion (D.I.30),
Defendant's Opposition to the Motion (D.I.31), and the PIaintiff's reply (D.I.33). The Motion is denied.
Reasonable minds may differ about the import of the record that I had before me and the application
of the law to that record, but nothing in the P|aintiff's filings persuades me that the fully briefed and
fully considered issues should be revisited. The standards that apply to motions for reargument and
reconsideration have been stated as follows:
The District of Delaware, through published case law, has developed rules that govern motions for
reargument under Local Rule 7.1.5. These governing principles are simply stated: 1) reargument
should be granted only when the merits clearly warrant and should never be afforded a litigant if
reargument would not result in an amendment of an order; 2) the purpose of reargument is to permit
the Court to correct error without unduly sacrificing finality; 3) grant of the reargument motion can
only occur in one of three circumstances: a) "where the Court has patently misunderstood a party/’
b) "[where the Court] has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by
the parties," or c) "[where the Court] has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension[;]" and
4) a motion for reargument may not be used by the losing litigant as a vehicle to supplement or
enlarge the record provided to the Court and upon which the merits decision was made unless; "new
factual matters not previously obtainable have been discovered since the issue was submitted to the
Court[.]"
Schering Corp. v. Amgon,.1nc.,.2.5 ,,., F..$uoo.2d 293, 295.(D.Del.19.9§) (citations omitted).
Here, the Plaintiff has not attempted to meet those standards. Plaintiff, disappointed because he
failed to meet his investigatory and litigation objectives, rehashes the arguments that (a) he did not
limit his search, (b) the search was neither adequate nor reasonable, (c) the government's affidavits
are inadequate and (d) Defendant failed to meet the statutory requirements. ( See D.I. 30.) His
Motion, however, is nothing more than an improper attempt to relitigate what has already been
decided, without presenting any grounds which would merit such reconsiderationfm Plaintiff has
failed to meet the legal standard for reconsideration and, therefore, his motion must be denied.
FN1. Defendant, because of the circumstances of this litigation, has gone above and
beyond of what is required under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). (D.I.31, Ex.
1.) In his reply, Plaintiff argues that it is significant that the Army has claimed an
http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?tindjuris=000O1&docsamplc=False&s... 2/ 1 4/2007

2005 WL 3654213 _ Pa e 2 ot`2
Case 1:05-cv-00300-JJF Document 166-5 Filed 02/14/2007 Page 3 ofg
exemption in one of its responses and that the Defendant has not determined the time lt
will take to provide results from a search delayed by an office move. (D.I. 33 at 1.)
However, because these additional searches were voluntary, Defendant is not obligated
under FOIA to adhere to any specific time line. (D.I.31, Ex. 1.) Similarly is it not
necessary to consider the merits of the exemption claimed by the Army, because, despite
being exempt, the Army voluntarily provided documents to Plaintiff, withholding only
names and email addresses contained in those documents. ( Id.)
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Copr. (C) West 2007 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works D.DeI.,2005.
Lechliter v. Department of Defense
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 3654213 (D.De|.)
Motions, Pleadings and Filings (Back to top)
• 2005 Wl. 2385636 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Jul. 21, 2005) Originallmage ofuthis Document
(PDF)
• 2005 W;._2_X3§_422 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration (Jul. 15, 2005) Original_I_mage__of this Dvocument (PDF)
END OF DOCUMENT
(C) 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttcxt.aspx?tindjuris=00001&docsamplc=False&s... 2/ 1 4/ 2007