Opinion ID: 198242
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Pre-1991 Evidence

Text: 8 Tang claims that Judge Torres erred in excluding the pre-1991 evidence because Judge Pettine's ruling that the evidence would be admissible was the law of the case. Whether the law of the case doctrine bars subsequent litigation of a claim is an issue of law subject to plenary review by this court. See Dopp v. Pritzker, 38 F.3d 1239, 1245 (1st Cir.1994). 9 Tang's reliance on the law of the case doctrine is misplaced. As we recently said, that doctrine both prevents a party from relitigating an issue decided by a lower court and unchallenged on appeal, and requires a lower court to comply with a superior court's instructions on remand. See Field v. Mans, 157 F.3d 35, 40-41 (1st Cir.1998). The doctrine does not preclude all reconsideration of an issue already settled. See Bethlehem Steel Export Corp. v. Redondo Constr. Corp., 140 F.3d 319, 321 (1st Cir.1998). Interlocutory orders, including denials of motions to dismiss, remain open to trial court reconsideration, and do not constitute the law of the case. Perez-Ruiz v. Crespo-Guillen, 25 F.3d 40, 42 (1st Cir.1994). 10 At the time of Judge Pettine's comments, the parties had not briefed whether the evidence was admissible; the Department had made a motion to dismiss the complaint. Even if Judge Pettine's comments constituted a ruling on admissibility, that ruling was interlocutory and subject to reconsideration. The fact that the issue was reconsidered by Judge Torres, rather than Judge Pettine, is of no moment. See United States v. O'Keefe, 128 F.3d 885, 891 (5th Cir.1997) ([A] successor judge has the same discretion to reconsider an order as would the first judge.). The law of the case is simply not implicated in Judge Torres's ruling on the admissibility of evidence. 2