Opinion ID: 194735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the refusal to retract

Text: In a last-ditch effort to salvage her case, appellant assigns error to the lower court's denial of her motion for reconsideration. In this instance, the motion for reconsideration added one new ingredient to the mix: a sworn statement from appellant's cousin, Nilda Fragoso de Rodriguez. The affidavit relates that Nilda accompanied appellant to the lawyer's office in December, 1984; that the lawyer wanted the decedent's medical records so that he could have them scrutinized by an expert; that Nilda requested the records from Doctor's Hospital in January of 1985; that she returned twice more to the hospital (on unspecified dates) before receiving the record on her third trip (the date of which is also unspecified); that she took the record to the attorney; that, later, on a date again unspecified, she returned to the hospital to get a certified copy of the full record; that, after a few telephone inquires on unspecified dates, she received the complete record; and that she delivered it to the lawyer the same day (date unspecified). 23 Bereft, as it is, of even approximate dates, this affidavit is manifestly insufficient to turn the tide. It shows, at most, desultory efforts inadequate to demonstrate diligence in obtaining the records; and, moreover, it wholly fails to suggest any good reason why appellant and her attorney sat complacently by for so long a period of time. Where, as here, a motion for summary judgment has been granted, the district court has substantial discretion in deciding whether to reopen the proceedings in order to allow the unsuccessful party to introduce new material or argue a new theory. Mackin v. City of Boston, 969 F.2d 1273, 1279 (1st Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1043 (1993); accord Mariani-Giron v. Acevedo-Ruiz, 945 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. 5 Bell Rock Road, 896 F.2d 605, 611 (1st Cir. 1990); Appeal of Sun Pipe Line Co., 831 F.2d 22, 25 (1st Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1055 (1988). The trial court's decision on such a motion will be overturned only if the appellant convinces us that the court committed a clear abuse of discretion. See Mackin, 969 F.2d at 1279; Sun Pipe Line, 831 F.2d at 25. Given three major inadequacies in the motion to reconsider appellant offered no excuse for the belated production of her cousin's affidavit; the affidavit itself raised more questions than it answered; and neither appellant nor her attorney, obviously the key players in the drama, submitted affidavits explaining what had transpired or why they had allowed it to transpire the district court was justified in refusing to exercise its discretion to extricate 24 appellant from her self-dug hole. The provisional stay is dissolved, the appellees' motion for dismissal of the appeal, a statutory stay, or related relief is denied, and the judgment below is affirmed. Costs to appellees. 25