Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 95-2389, SECTION: "S" (3)
January 30, 2004
ORDER AND REASONS
IT IS ORDERED that defendant Fratelli Tanfoglio, S.n.c.'s Motion to Reconsider (Document 259) is hereby DENIED.
Fratelli Tanfoglio seeks reconsideration of the court's December 22, 2003 Order and Reasons, which affirmed the magistrate judge's award of sanctions to plaintiff due to Fratelli Tanfoglio's untimely discovery responses. Fratelli Tanfoglio's Motion to Reconsider was filed within ten days of the court's ruling, and is accordingly treated as a motion to alter or amend under Rule 59(e). Giles v. General Electric Co., 245 F.3d 474, 494 (5th Cir. 2001). To obtain relief under Rule 59(e), Fratelli Tanfoglio (1) must show that its motion is necessary to correct a manifest error of law or fact, (2) must present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, (3) must show that its motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice, or (4) must show that its motion is justified by an intervening change in the controlling law. Robinett v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 02-842, 2003 WL 292306, at *1 (E.D. La. Feb. 10, 2003), aff'd, 2003 WL 22966127 (5th Cir. Dec. 11, 2003); United States v. Adams, No. 99-88, 2002 WL 826770, at *1 (E.D. La. April 30, 2002). Fratelli Tanfoglio's Motion to Reconsider argues that the court's ruling was legally and factually incorrect. Each of Fratelli Tanfoglio's arguments was presented in its prior memorandum supporting its appeal from the magistrate judge's sanctions order, and the court considered each of them when it issued its ruling. Fratelli Tanfoglio has not demonstrated that it is entitled to relief under Rule 59(e).