UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Samuel J. Bourne

v. Civil No. 05-cv-365-JD

Town of Madison, et al.

O R D E R

Samuel J. Bourne moved for partial reconsideration of the

order, issued on May 9, 2007, granting the defendants' motion in

limine to exclude Ronald H. Rice's testimony and the order,

issued on June 29, 2007, granting in part the defendants' motion

for summary judgment. The court set a schedule for the parties

to move for reconsideration based on the state court action,

which has not reached a final judgment. Bourne sought

reconsideration on other grounds, however, which are considered

here. The defendants object to Bourne's motions.

To be successful on a motion for reconsideration, the moving

party must "clearly establish a manifest error of law or must

present newly discovered evidence." FDIC v. World Univ. Inc.,

978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992). Reconsideration is not

appropriate, however, when the motion is "grounded on the

discovery of evidence that, in the exercise of due diligence,

could have been presented earlier." Emmanuel v. Int'l Bhd. of

Teamsters, 426 F.3d 416, 422 (1st Cir. 2005). A motion for

Case 1:05-cv-00365-JD Document 116 Filed 12/20/07 Page 1 of 5
2

reconsideration is not an opportunity for rearguing the party's

case or raising new arguments that were not, but could have been,

made in the context of opposing the dispositive motion. Marks 3

Zet-Ernst Marks GmBh & Co. KG v. Presstek, Inc., 455 F.3d 7, 15

(1st Cir. 2006).

I. Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion in Limine

Bourne retained an expert witness, Ronald H. Rice, to

testify about a cover letter addressed to the town and

purportedly signed by Bourne. Rice's opinion is that Bourne's

signature was forged and that the characters in the letter are

consistent with characters in other documents generated by the

town. The defendants moved to exclude Rice's testimony on the

grounds that he is not qualified and his methodology is

unreliable. The court granted the motion, concluding that Rice

was not qualified to testify as a document expert and that his

methodology for handwriting analysis was not reliable.

For purposes of reconsideration, Bourne challenges that part

of the order pertaining to Rice's testimony about Bourne's

signature. In the May 9 order, the court noted its misgivings

about Rice's qualifications to testify as a handwriting expert

but granted the defendants' motion to exclude his testimony

because Bourne failed to make a sufficient showing that Rice's

Case 1:05-cv-00365-JD Document 116 Filed 12/20/07 Page 2 of 5
1Bourne's evidence in support of his new theory is thin at

best, based on Rice's testimony: "Yeah, I believe I brought my

hand-held magnifier and the camera I needed to look at the

original . . . ." Reply at 3. Rice also testified that he could

not have and did not do any analysis of the original when he

looked at it briefly at the town hall. He also stated that he

used a "video eye" to look at the document but does not explain

that device. Bourne refers the court to a web site to conduct

its own research on the operation of a "video eye."

2The court also notes that the issue of the alleged forgery

appears to be moot based on the parties' mutual release.

3

methodology was reliable. In particular, the court found that

Rice's method of using successive enlargements of the signature

was not reliable, that Bourne's citations to authority in support

of Rice's methods were not persuasive, and that his arguments in

opposition to the defendants' criticisms were not creditworthy. 

Bourne now contends that Rice analyzed the original

signature with a magnifying glass when he saw the letter at the

town offices and worked from a photograph and a first generation

photocopy of the letter, not from multiple enlargements, for

purposes of formulating his opinion that the signature was

forged.1 Bourne's newly-constructed arguments are too little and

too late. As the defendants point out, Rice's deposition

testimony contradicts Bourne's new theories. Further,

reconsideration cannot be based on new evidence without an

explanation of why it was not found and presented previously. 

The motion for reconsideration is denied.2

Case 1:05-cv-00365-JD Document 116 Filed 12/20/07 Page 3 of 5
4

II. Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Partial Summary

Judgment

 Bourne seeks reconsideration of those parts of the court's

order that granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on

Bourne's substantive due process and equal protection claims and

that found the parties' release to be enforceable. Bourne

contends that the court failed to appreciate his evidence of the

defendants' hostility toward him, disagrees with the court's

conclusions, and argues that his business experience was

insufficient to assist him in understanding the release he

signed. Bourne also argues that additional evidence could be

adduced at trial to support his claims, but that proffer did not

and would not satisfy the summary judgment standard. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(c). In addition, even if that evidence had been

properly presented, it would not have changed the outcome. 

Bourne has not demonstrated any manifest errors or law or

fact in the June 29 order.

Case 1:05-cv-00365-JD Document 116 Filed 12/20/07 Page 4 of 5
5

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's motions for

reconsideration (documents no. 97 and 105) are denied without

prejudice to all parties to file a motion for reconsideration

based on the final judgment in the pending state court proceeding

as provided in the court's procedural orders issued on May 3,

2007, and September 14, 2007 (documents no. 93 and 113). The

plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply (document no. 108)

is granted, and the reply, Exhibit 1, was considered.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

December 20, 2007

cc: Catherine M. Costanzo, Esquire

Brian J.S. Cullen, Esquire

Rachel A. Hampe, Esquire

Richard D. Sager, Esquire

Gerald F. Williamson, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00365-JD Document 116 Filed 12/20/07 Page 5 of 5