Bepex International, LLC v. Hosokawa Micron BV
- John Docherty
- 0:19-cv-02997
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Bepex International v. Hosokawa Micron, Judge Docherty denied Bepex leave to seek reconsideration while clarifying that a witness could testify as a non-expert.
Bepex International, LLC was not permitted to file a motion seeking reconsideration of the earlier ruling barring Tom Brion from testifying as an expert. The order left open the possibility that Bepex could call Brion as a non-expert witness if it follows the applicable rules.
What happened
Bepex International, LLC asked the court to reconsider part of an earlier order in its case against Hosokawa Micron BV. That order barred Bepex from calling Tom Brion as an expert because Bepex disclosed him too late.
Bepex argued that Brion would testify as a non-expert and that Hosokawa was not harmed because it had deposed him. Hosokawa disputed those points and argued that the late disclosure caused prejudice regardless of Brion’s witness classification.
The court denied Bepex’s request for permission to file a reconsideration motion. Judge John F. Docherty explained that the earlier order addressed only Brion’s use as an expert and did not prevent Bepex from calling him as another type of witness if Bepex follows the applicable rules.
The detailed version
- Bepex International, LLC v. Hosokawa Micron BV · No. 0:19-cv-02997
- John F. Docherty
- Nov. 2, 2022
Background
The court considered Bepex’s request for permission under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j) to file a motion for reconsideration. Bepex sought reconsideration of only one part of an earlier order that granted in part and denied in part Hosokawa Micron BV’s motion to strike Bepex’s untimely third supplemental answers to combined interrogatories.
In the earlier order, the court held that Bepex’s disclosure of Tom Brion as an expert witness was untimely, that the late disclosure prejudiced Hosokawa, and that Bepex could not call Brion as an expert witness at trial. The earlier order also barred Bepex from using that disclosure in further litigation. The court stated that it had not decided whether Bepex could call Brion in another type of witness role.
Arguments
Bepex argued that Brion’s expected trial testimony would not be expert testimony and that Hosokawa had acknowledged this. Bepex also argued that Hosokawa suffered no prejudice because it had deposed Brion and cited his deposition in a summary-judgment motion.
Hosokawa denied conceding that Brion was not an expert. It argued that Bepex’s unjustified failure to timely disclose Brion’s identity caused prejudice whether Bepex intended to call him as a lay witness or as an expert.
Ruling
Local Rule 7.1(j) requires a party to obtain the court’s permission before filing a motion for reconsideration and requires compelling circumstances for that permission. The court explained that reconsideration is limited to correcting a clear legal or factual error or addressing newly discovered evidence.
The court held that Bepex had not shown compelling circumstances. The earlier order addressed only whether Bepex timely disclosed Brion as an expert witness. It did not prohibit Bepex from calling Brion as a non-expert witness, provided Bepex complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court therefore denied Bepex’s Request for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration. Judge John F. Docherty signed the order on November 2, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.