Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01391-JJF Document 108-2 Filed 06/17/2008 Page 1 014

- Case 1 :04-cv-01391-JJF Document 108-2 Filed 08/17/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case1:05—cv-00104-JJF Document 70 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 1 013 ` .
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
KAREN BARKES, individually; :
TINA GROSSMAN as next friend of : ·
BRITTANY BARKES; TINA GROSSMAN : ·
as next friend of ALEXANDRA BARKES;:
and KAREN BARKES as administratrix :
of the ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER :
s- BARKES, :
: Civil Action No. 06—104eJJF
Plaintiffs, :
" n V. : n
F FIRST CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL, INC; : -
STANLEY TAYLOR; RAPHAEL WILLIAMS; : `
CERTAIN UNKNOWN INDIVIDUAL : ‘
EMPLOYEES OF STATE OF DELAWARE : ‘
- - DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; CERTAIN :
UNKNOWN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES OF : A ‘
FIRST CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL, INC., .; .
and STATE OF DELAWARE, DEPARTMENT :
OF CORRECTION, :
_ Defendants. Q ,
F F _ MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion For
Reargument (D.I, 64). For the reasons discussed, the Motion will
be denied.
. Although not explicitly provided for in the Federal Rules of
g Civil Procedure, Local Rule 7.1.5 provides for the filing of
A reargument motions. See D. Del. L.R. 7.1.5. The decision to
grant a motion for reargument lies within the discretion of the
. district court; however, such motions should only be granted
sparingly. Dentsply Int‘l, Inc. v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 42 F.Supp.2d
- 385, 419 (D.Del. 1999).
- . A motion for reargument “should not be used to rehash

- Case 1 :04-cv-01391-JJF Document 108-2 Filed 06/17/2008 Page 3 of 4
_ I ‘ Case 1:0E5—cv—00104-JJF Document 70 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 2 of 3-
arguments already briefed or to allow a ‘never—ending polemic
between the litigants and the Court.” ’ Id. (citing Ogelsby v.
Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., 877 F.Supp. 872, 892 (D.Del.1995)). As
such, a motion for reargument may only be granted in three narrow
circumstances: (1) where the court has patently misunderstood a
_ party, (2) where the court has made an error not of reasoning,
_ but of apprehension, or (3) where the court has made a decision
outside the scope of the issues presented to the court by the
parties. Id. (citing Pirelli Cable Corp v. Ciena Corp., 988
.F.Supp. 424, 445 (D.Del.1998)). 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 l .
previously obtainable have been discovered since the issue was
submitted to the Court.’” Schering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25
F.Supp.2d 293, 295 (D.Del. l998)(quoting Brambles USA, Inc. v.
Blocker, 735 F.Supp. 1239, 1241 (D.Del. 1990)). Application of
these legal principles compels denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for
reargument. l
By their Motion, Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled
to reargument because “the state of the record is such as to
create genuine issues of material fact requiring resolution at
trial.” (D.I. 64 at 1.) Plaintiffs contend that reargument is
justified based on: (1) confusion regarding discovery responses
2

Case 1 :04-cv-01391-JJF Document 108-2 Filed 06/17/2008 Page 4 of 4
Case ’i:06—cv—0O104—JJF Document?0 Filed 04/18/2008 Page3of3 `
on suicide protocols in place at the time of decedent Christopher
- Barkes’s (“Mr. BarRes”) death; (2) the United States Department
of Justice (“USDOJ”} December 2006 documents; and (3)
deficiencies in the DOC’s suicide prevention policies and
practices. Plaintiff's Motion attempts to relitigate matters
previously decided by the Court, and therefore, Plaintiff has not
stated a cognizable ground justifying reargument in this case.
` The Court fully considered the factual and legal arguments of the
parties with respect to these issues, and nothing in Plaintiffs'
filing persuades the Court that the issues in this case should be
revisited.
· U NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's_ Motion
For Reargument (D.I. 64) is DENIED. U
A April E, ZOO8 Q? U
TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 a