THOMAS v. ROBERTS

IFNO TRH TEH UEN MIITDEDDL SET DATISETSR DICISTT ORFIC GTE COORUGRIAT ALBANY DIVISION SHANEKA THOMAS, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 1:23-CV-00199 (WLS) : CHARLIE LARANZO ROBERTS, : : Defendant. : : ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Reconsider Finding That Motions in Limine Are Limited to the Exclusion [sic] Evidence” (Doc. 42) (“the Motion for Reconsideration”).

It appears that Plaintiff takes issue with the Court’s statements of intention in its Order (Doc. 41) memorializing the pretrial conference.

The Court is perplexed by Counsel’s filing of a motion for reconsideration in response to a memorializing order. No final findings were made as to the Motions in Limine. (See Doc. 42 at 1). Instead, the Court merely made a statement of intent as to the treatment of Plaintiff’s motion as notices to include certain pieces of evidence—rather than as motions in limine to exclude evidence. (Id.) The Court made clear that it will resolve the admissibility of evidence at a later date or at trial. (Id.) In other words, there is nothing in the Order to reconsider. The only prejudice Plaintiff might suffer is if the Court ultimately determines that the proffered evidence is inadmissible at trial. At that point, a final finding as to the evidence will have been made. A motion for reconsideration would be, at least procedurally, appropriate only then.1 As such, the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 42) is DENIED, as moot and without prejudice.

1 However, as the Local Rules explain, “Motions for Reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice.” M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.6. Such motions are granted only when (1) there has been an intervening change in the law; (2) new and previously unavailable evidence has been discovered through the exercise of due diligence; or (3) the court made a clear error of law. McCoy v. Macon Water Auth., 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D. Ga. 1997).

However, the Court takes note of the arguments asserted and the authority relied upon in the Motion for Reconsideration and will consider them when the time comes to resolve Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine.

SO ORDERED, this 14th day of March 2025.

/s/ W. Louis Sands W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT