Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02183/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02183-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Estate of James Maakestad,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mayo Clinic Arizona dba Mayo Clinic

Scottsdale, an Arizona corporation,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-2183-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Reconsideration Re: Defendant’s Motion in Limine

No. 3 Re: The Writings of James Maakestad and Motion in Limine No. 9 Re: Medical

Examiner’s Report. Dkt. #143. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the

motion.

I. Plaintiff’s Motion and the Court’s Prior Rulings. 

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3 argued that various writings of James Maakestad

were inadmissible hearsay. Dkt. #114. In response, Plaintiff argued that the documents were

admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1) as present sense impressions. For the

reasons stated on the record during the Final Pretrial Conference on September 21, 2006, the

Court disagreed. The Court granted Defendant’s motion because the documents clearly were

not present sense impressions and Plaintiff had identified no other exception to the hearsay

rule under which they would be admissible. Dkt. ##139, 140. 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration argues that the Maakestad documents are

admissible as business records of Mayo Clinic under Rule 803(6) and are also admissible to

Case 2:04-cv-02183-DGC Document 144 Filed 10/12/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

explain Defendant’s conduct (in which event the documents would not be admitted to prove

the truth of the matter asserted). Dkt. #143. Neither of these arguments was made in

Plaintiff’s response to the motion in limine.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 9 sought to exclude a medical examiner’s report

under Rules 401, 402, 403 and the hearsay rule. Dkt. #118. In response, Plaintiff argued that

the report was relevant, not unfairly prejudicial, and fell within the public records hearsay

exception in Rule 803(9). Dkt. #132. As explained on the record during the Final Pretrial

Conference, the Court excluded the report under Rule 403. The Court concluded that the

danger of unfair prejudice presented by the report substantially outweighed its probative

value. Dkt. ##139, 140. 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration does not specifically address the medical

examiner’s report. It appears to argue, however, that the report is admissible as a business

record of Mayo Clinic under Rule 803(6). 

II. Analysis.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to make

new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. See Northwest Acceptance Corp.

v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Rezzonico,

32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). Judge Teilborg of this District has identified four

circumstances where a motion for reconsideration will be granted: (1) where the moving

party has discovered material differences in fact or law from those presented to the Court at

the time of its initial decision, and the party could not previously have known of the factual

or legal differences through the exercise of reasonable diligence; (2) where material factual

events have occurred since the Court’s initial decision; (3) where there has been a material

change in the law since the Court’s initial decision; or (4) where the movant makes a

convincing showing that the Court failed to consider material facts that were presented to the

Court at the time of its initial decision. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mechanical

Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). 

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-02183-DGC Document 144 Filed 10/12/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Even if the Court considered Plaintiff’s new arguments, it would find them unavailing.

Plaintiff contends that the writings of James Maakestad constitute business records of Mayo

Clinic, but fails to explain how the personal writings of Mr. Maakestad could be viewed as

having been made by Mayo Clinic “at or near the time by, or from information transmitted

by, a person with knowledge[.]” Fed. R. Ev. 803(6). Nor does Plaintiff explain how the

writings of Mr. Maakestad created in response to Defendant’s conduct can be used to explain

that conduct without being considered for the truth of the matters asserted. Plaintiff also fails

to explain how the medical examiner’s report could be a business record of Mayo Clinic.

Even if it were such a business record, it would still be inadmissible under Rule 403. 

- 3 -

Plaintiff’s motion does not satisfy any of these standards. The motion asserts legal

arguments that could have been made in response to Defendant’s motions in limine. With

respect to the writings of Mr. Maakestad, Plaintiff did not argue that the writings constituted

business records of Mayo Clinic or that they should be admitted to explain Defendant’s

conduct (and therefore would not be admitted to prove the truth of the matters asserted in the

writings). With respect to the medical examiner’s report, Plaintiff did not argue that the

report constituted a business record. 

Because Plaintiff could have made these arguments but failed to do so, the arguments

do not constitute a valid basis for reconsideration of the Court’s prior ruling. Plaintiff’s

motion will therefore be denied.1

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Re: Defendant’s

Motion in Limine No. 3 Re: The Writings of James Maakestad and Motion in Limine No.

9 Re: Medical Examiner’s Report (Dkt. #143) is denied.

DATED this 12th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02183-DGC Document 144 Filed 10/12/06 Page 3 of 3