Bliv, Inc. v. The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company
4:22-cv-00869
E.D. Mo.Jun 3, 2024Background
- Plaintiff BLIV, Inc. d/b/a Lectro Engineering and Real BLIV, LLC, sought reconsideration of a prior court ruling excluding its expert witness under a Daubert motion.
- The original exclusion order was entered on December 18, 2023.
- Plaintiff filed its motion to reconsider the exclusion on January 26, 2024.
- Reconsideration motions are not specifically contemplated in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but are construed under Rule 59(e) (if timely) or Rule 60(b).
- Rule 60(b) permits relief from judgment only for specified exceptional circumstances.
- The Court found Plaintiff's motion simply repeated previous arguments against exclusion, rather than presenting new grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should expert Brian Johnson's exclusion order be reconsidered? | The Court should allow reconsideration because the exclusion was erroneous. | Motion to reconsider is improper; no new grounds are shown. | Motion denied; Plaintiff provided no new ground for relief. |
| Is Rule 60(b) relief warranted? | Plaintiff qualifies for relief under Rule 60(b). | No extraordinary circumstances exist. | No exceptional circumstances; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ackerland v. United States, 633 F.3d 698 (8th Cir. 2011) (Clarifies that motions to reconsider judgments are reviewed under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)).
- U.S. Xpress Enters., Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 320 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2003) (Describes Rule 60(b) as providing only for extraordinary relief in exceptional circumstances).
- Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 1999) (Rule 60(b) is not appropriate for arguments previously considered by the court).