{"id":4647,"date":"2026-05-21T04:46:38","date_gmt":"2026-05-21T04:46:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.insuracarelife.com\/blog\/motion-for-reconsideration-it-does-not-exist-but-it-is-routinely-entertained-on-limited-grounds-edrm-electronic-discovery-reference-model\/"},"modified":"2026-05-21T04:46:38","modified_gmt":"2026-05-21T04:46:38","slug":"motion-for-reconsideration-it-does-not-exist-but-it-is-routinely-entertained-on-limited-grounds-edrm-electronic-discovery-reference-model","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.insuracarelife.com\/blog\/motion-for-reconsideration-it-does-not-exist-but-it-is-routinely-entertained-on-limited-grounds-edrm-electronic-discovery-reference-model\/","title":{"rendered":"Motion for Reconsideration\u2014It Does Not Exist\u2014But It Is Routinely Entertained\u2014On Limited Grounds | EDRM – Electronic Discovery Reference Model"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
Image: Holley Robinson, EDRM.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

In Stanisaveljevic v. The Standard Fire Ins. Co.,<\/em> 2026 WL 1129515 (D. Col. Apr. 27, 2026), defendants filed a motion for reconsideration arising out of a discovery dispute. It was denied.<\/p>\n

Standard Fire based its motion on alleged \u201cnew evidence.\u201d The court determined that the evidence was not new. In fact, it was in Standard Fire\u2019s possession. However, Standard Fire failed to read it prior to the court order. That is not a basis for reconsideration.<\/p>\n

After a court discovery order, Standard Fire filed a motion for partial reconsideration. \u201cStandard Fire\u2019s counsel determined that several of the fifteen ordered courses\u2014specifically, the courses addressing negotiation with unrepresented parties, \u2018Know Your Opponent,\u2019 and the \u2018Module Three Right Counsel Engagement Playbook\u2019\u2014contain materials that Standard Fire contends pertain solely to the handling and litigation of third-party liability claims against Standard Fire\u2019s insureds, not to handling of first-party underinsured motorist (\u2018UIM\u2019) claims.\u201d <\/p>\n

In short, Standard Fire was arguing that the information ordered to be produced was not discoverable. The Stanisaveljevic<\/em> court wrote that \u201cStandard Fire asks the court to narrow its August 5, 2025 Order on Motions \u2026 to exclude from production certain training courses that, Standard Fire contends, pertain solely to the handling of third-party liability claims rather than first-party UIM claims like Plaintiff\u2019s.\u201d<\/p>\n

The basis of the motion for reconsideration was alleged \u201cnewly discovered\u201d information. Standard Fire \u201cargues that this limitation is warranted by newly discovered information\u2014specifically, the content of the training materials themselves, which counsel reviewed for the first time after the court\u2019s order issued.<\/em>\u201d [emphasis added].<\/p>\n

Plaintiff disagreed, and:<\/p>\n

\n

Plaintiff opposes, arguing that the motion is an improper attempt to relitigate issues already resolved and that the materials at issue are squarely within the scope of the court\u2019s order. Plaintiff further argues that Standard Fire cannot satisfy the \u201cnew evidence\u201d standard because the materials at issue were always within its possession, custody, and control, and that counsel\u2019s failure to review those materials prior to the court\u2019s order does not render them newly discovered or previously unavailable.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Stanisaveljevic<\/em> court wrote:<\/p>\n

\n

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a \u201cmotion to reconsider.\u201d.\u2026 Nevertheless, such motions are routinely entertained by federal courts.<\/em>\u2026 [emphasis added].<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Next, it enunciated the governing standard:<\/p>\n

\n

The grounds for granting reconsideration are, however, extremely limited: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) new evidence previously unavailable; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. \u2026 Reconsideration is appropriate where the court has \u201cmisapprehended the facts, a party\u2019s position, or the controlling law,\u201d but it is not a vehicle to revisit issues already addressed or to advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Stanisaveljevic<\/em> court then explained what the term \u201cnew evidence\u201d means: \u201cWhere a party invokes the \u2018new evidence\u2019 ground, the evidence must have been genuinely unavailable at the time of the original briefing and not merely unreviewed\u2026. The critical distinction is between evidence that could not have been obtained and evidence that a party simply chose not to gather.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\n

The critical distinction is between evidence that could not have been obtained and evidence that a party simply chose not to gather.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Stanisaveljevic v. The Standard Fire Ins. Co.,<\/em> 2026 WL 1129515 (D. Col. Apr. 27, 2026).<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n

Applying those principles, \u201cStandard Fire\u2019s motion does not identify an intervening change in controlling law, and it does not establish clear error or manifest injustice. Its sole asserted basis for reconsideration is that counsel reviewed its own training materials after the court\u2019s order and now characterizes certain of them as irrelevant to Plaintiff\u2019s UIM claim. That is not new evidence previously unavailable\u2026.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Stanisaveljevic<\/em> court also wrote something that may be important in the ESI context: \u201cThe premise of the motion is not that new evidence has come to light. Rather, Standard Fire\u2019s argument is based entirely on the content of its own internal training materials\u2014materials that have been in its possession throughout this litigation. Standard Fire made a deliberate tactical choice not to review or compile those materials prior to the court\u2019s order, based on its position that Plaintiff\u2019s request was overbroad and disproportional\u2026<\/em>. That choice had consequences. The information underlying this motion was not \u2018previously unavailable\u2019\u2026; it was available, and Standard Fire simply chose not to access it. As this court has recognized, there is no valid excuse for failing to review potentially responsive discovery materials where that evidence was accessible to the party at the time of the original briefing.<\/em>\u201d [emphasis added].<\/p>\n

The court also rejected relevance arguments, noting that they should have been made previously. It also addressed privilege issues.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Image: Holley Robinson, EDRM. In Stanisaveljevic v. The Standard Fire Ins. Co., 2026 WL 1129515 (D. Col. Apr. 27, 2026), defendants filed a motion for reconsideration arising out of a discovery dispute. It was denied. Standard Fire based its motion on alleged \u201cnew evidence.\u201d The court determined that the evidence was not new. In fact, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4648,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[3070,3527,3528,3525,3523,3526,463,2453,3521,3522,3529,3524],"class_list":["post-4647","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blog","tag-discovery","tag-edrm","tag-electronic","tag-entertainedon","tag-existbut","tag-grounds","tag-limited","tag-model","tag-motion","tag-reconsiderationit","tag-reference","tag-routinely"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.insuracarelife.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4647","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.insuracarelife.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.insuracarelife.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.insuracarelife.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.insuracarelife.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4647"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.insuracarelife.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4647\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.insuracarelife.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4648"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.insuracarelife.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4647"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.insuracarelife.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4647"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.insuracarelife.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}