United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
EAGLE AIR MED CORPORATION, a Utah corporation; and VALLEY MED FLIGHT INC., a North Dakota corporation, Plaintiffs,
SENTINEL AIR MEDICAL ALLIANCE, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; JEFFREY FRAZIER, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
AMENDED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ECF NO. 287)
J. Furse, United States Magistrate Judge
the Court is Defendants' Amended Motion for
Reconsideration of Order Granting in Part Motion for
Sanctions (ECF No. 287). Defendants Sentinel Air Medical
Alliance and Jeffrey Frazier (collectively,
“Sentinel”) seek reconsideration of the
Court's December 3, 2018 Memorandum Decision and
Modifying the Order Granting in Part Motion for Sanctions
(ECF No. 247). In that decision, the Court ordered a forensic
examination of Mr. Frazier's computers. (Id.)
Sentinel argues that (1) the record does not support a
finding that it committed any discovery misconduct, (2) the
Court failed to consider the intrusiveness of the forensic
imaging of Mr. Frazier's computers, and (3)
alternatively, the Court should modify its order to exclude
imaging of Mr. Frazier's “Original Dell
laptop” because it is in one of four storage locations,
and it would be highly burdensome and time consuming for Mr.
Frazier to locate the computer. (See ECF No. 287.)
In opposing the Motion for Reconsideration, Eagle Air Med
Corporation (“Eagle”) and Valley Med Flight Inc.
(“Valley”) argue that (1) Sentinel's rehashed
arguments concerning its discovery misconduct do not warrant
reconsideration of the Court's discovery order under the
applicable reconsideration standard, (2) its rehashed
proportionality arguments do not warrant reconsideration, and
(3) Sentinel's “highly burdensome” argument
concerning the Dell laptop is meritless since Mr. Frazier has
not credibly demonstrated that turnover of that laptop will
be unduly burdensome. For the reasons addressed below, the
Court DENIES Sentinel's Motion for Reconsideration.
warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening
change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously
unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or
prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of Paraclete
v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Thus a
motion to reconsider “is appropriate where the court
has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the
controlling law . . . [but] is not appropriate to revisit
issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have
been raised in prior briefing.” Id. (citation
omitted); see also The SCO Grp., Inc. v. Novell,
Inc., No. CIV. 2:04CV139DAK, 2007 WL 2746953, at *1 (D.
Utah Sept. 14, 2007) (unpublished) (“A motion to
reconsider must be made upon grounds other than a mere
disagreement with the court's decision and must do more
than rehash a party's former arguments that were rejected
by the court.”).
does not address the applicable legal standard for
reconsidering a prior order, and its Motion for
Reconsideration does not meet the high bar imposed on a
motion for reconsideration. Sentinel has not demonstrated an
intervening change in controlling law, offered new evidence
previously unavailable, or demonstrated a clear error which
needs to be corrected or manifest injustice which must be
prevented. Instead, Sentinel's Motion for Reconsideration
largely repackages arguments made in its prior briefing on
Eagle and Valley's sanctions motion, which is not a valid
basis for a motion seeking reconsideration of a prior order.
See Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.
Sentinel's argument that the record does not support a
finding that it engaged in discovery misconduct, the Court
reiterates the following points. First, despite
Sentinel's argument that data concerning other air
medical transport providers is “irrelevant” (ECF
No. 287 at 5), the Court has found to the contrary in a prior
order (ECF No. 166 at 8-11). Second, the discovery requests
at issue are not limited to a single database-they are broad
enough to encompass both the “old” and
“new” databases. Moreover, to the extent Sentinel
decided not to produce the “new” database, Rule
34 required Sentinel, in objecting to the requests, to
“state whether any responsive materials are being
withheld, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(C), which it did not
do. Third, Sentinel allowed this Court to rely on
representations that it did not keep records of its review
letters without making any attempt to clarify or qualify the
representation. (ECF No. 140 at 37-39.) Sentinel only
attempted to clarify its retention policy after Mr. Frazier
admitted during Sentinel's 30(b)(6) deposition that he
retains 20-30% of the review letters.
the Court did not fail to consider the intrusiveness of the
forensic imaging of Mr. Frazier's computers, as Sentinel
argues. The Court recognized and accounted for
confidentiality and privacy concerns by ordering the
appointment of an independent forensic expert to serve as an
Officer of the Court and oversee the imaging, and by allowing
Sentinel to review documents obtained during the search prior
Sentinel's arguments regarding the burden in turning over
the Original Dell laptop are without merit. Eagle and Valley
filed this case in 2016 and, according to Sentinel, Mr.
Frazier put the Dell in storage in June 2017. Given when
Eagle and Valley filed this lawsuit, Mr. Frazier was on
notice of his need to retain and likely search the laptop as
part of this case. That Mr. Frazier instead stored the laptop
and must now find it is a burden of his own making, and does
not warrant modification of the Court's prior order.
foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Sentinel's ...