(Ofte Foudim2.@2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois A
lame of Assigned Ju Sitting Judge if Other
NemeafAcue ie | Charles R. Norgle | Sune utes (
CASE NUMBER 02 C 5221 DATE 4/4/2011
CASE Johnson vs. General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of The United Methodist
TITLE Church
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff's Motion for Rehearing to Vacate Order Regarding Certain Pretrial Issues [472] and Plaintiff’s
Motion for Rehearing to Motion for Leave to Modify or Amend Order Regarding Pretrial Issues and to
Clarify [475] are stricken. The Court’s previous orders and trial date stand.

Lien tn Fog ev

Docketing to mail notices.

Mi For further details see text below.]

T

“a

STATEMENT

Before the Court is Plaintiff Merdelin Johnson’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Rehearing to Motion for
Leave to Modify or Amend Order Regarding Pretrial Issues and to Clarify and Plaintiffs Motion for
Rehearing to Vacate Order Regarding Certain Pretrial Issues. For the following reasons, the Motions are
stricken.

Plaintiff has filed numerous motions for reconsideration with regard to the Court’s July 21, 2010 and
July 28, 2010 rulings. Plaintiff seeks to modify or amend or vacate the Order Regarding Certain Pretrial
Issues entered on July 21, 2010 and the Minute Order entered July 28, 2010 with respect to: (1) Plaintiffs
witness list; (2) trial testimony of Barbara Boigergrain; (3) recording of Plaintiff’s personal telephone calls;
and (4) the General Board’s policy manual. As an initial matter, the Court notes that Judge Anderson has
previously denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration regarding the court’s decision concerning the
testimony of Barbara Boigegrain and the court’s decision concerning the call recording issue. Order
Regarding Pretrial Issues, July 21, 2010. This Court has also denied Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Modify
or Amend Order Regarding Pretrial Issues and to Clarify Issues and Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate Order
Regarding Certain Pretrial Issues with respect to the same issues. Minute Order, Mar. 11, 2011; Minute
Order, Mar. 14, 2011.

Plaintiff's Motions do not allege any significant change in law or fact since the previous rulings were
made and do not provide any additional information that was not previously considered by the Court when
making its ruling on the issues. Further, Plaintiff has not indicated any reason why she did not raise these
arguments, which were available to her, before the Court initially rendered a judgment. The Court again
reminds Plaintiff that District court orders are not “mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at
a litigant’s pleasure.” Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Idus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988);
see also Qshana v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 04-CV-3596, 2005 WL 670522, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2005).
Plaintiffs Motions merely repeat arguments already considered and rejected by the Court. Accordingly, both

02C5221 Johnson vs. General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of The United Methodist Church Page 1 of 2



STATEMENT

Motions are stricken. The Court’s previous orders and trial date stand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

02C5221 Johnson vs. General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of The United Methodist Church

Page 2 of 2