Farmer v. FilmTec Corporation
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:22-cv-02974
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Farmer v. FilmTec, Judge Menendez denied Farmer permission to seek reconsideration of summary judgment for defendants.
Darran Farmer and defendants FilmTec Corporation and DuPont De Nemours, Inc.; the court denied Farmer’s request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration.
What happened
In Farmer v. FilmTec Corporation, Darran Farmer asked for permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier decision granting summary judgment to FilmTec Corporation and DuPont De Nemours, Inc.
The court said permission requires compelling circumstances, such as a clear legal or factual error or newly discovered evidence. It found that Farmer’s letter identified only disagreements with the court’s evaluation of the summary-judgment record and did not identify a legal error or new evidence.
Judge Katherine Menendez concluded that the letter was an attempt to reargue issues already considered, not an extraordinary circumstance. The court denied the request for permission to file a reconsideration motion.
The detailed version
- Farmer v. FilmTec Corporation · No. 0:22-cv-02974
- Katherine Menendez
- Nov. 19, 2024
Background
The court considered Darran Farmer’s October 17, 2024 letter requesting permission to file a motion for reconsideration. Farmer sought reconsideration of the court’s September 19, 2024 order granting summary judgment to FilmTec Corporation and DuPont De Nemours, Inc., which the opinion refers to collectively as “FilmTec.” Summary judgment is a decision resolving claims without a trial when the court determines that the relevant record does not require a trial.
Legal standard
Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j), a party must first obtain permission before filing a motion for reconsideration. Permission is granted only when the party shows “compelling circumstances.” The opinion explains that reconsideration is limited to correcting a clear legal or factual error, presenting newly discovered evidence, or providing relief in extraordinary circumstances.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Farmer’s counsel’s letter did not expressly address the standard for obtaining permission. After reviewing the letter and the record portions it cited, the court concluded that the letter identified no clear legal or factual error and pointed to no newly discovered evidence. The court characterized the letter as disagreements with its evaluation of the summary-judgment record and an attempt to reargue matters already considered. It also noted that counsel provided no authority showing that the court’s analysis was legally erroneous.
Ruling
The court found that this was not an extraordinary circumstance warranting permission to seek reconsideration. It therefore denied the letter request, ECF No. 63, for permission to file a motion for reconsideration.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.