[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of the author.]
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 “new evidence.” The court determined that the evidence was not new. In fact, it was in Standard Fire’s possession. However, Standard Fire failed to read it prior to the court order. That is not a basis for reconsideration.
After a court discovery order, Standard Fire filed a motion for partial reconsideration. “Standard Fire’s counsel determined that several of the fifteen ordered courses—specifically, the courses addressing negotiation with unrepresented parties, ‘Know Your Opponent,’ and the ‘Module Three Right Counsel Engagement Playbook’—contain materials that Standard Fire contends pertain solely to the handling and litigation of third-party liability claims against Standard Fire’s insureds, not to handling of first-party underinsured motorist (‘UIM’) claims.”
In short, Standard Fire was arguing that the information ordered to be produced was not discoverable. The Stanisaveljevic court wrote that “Standard Fire asks the court to narrow its August 5, 2025 Order on Motions … 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’s.”
The basis of the motion for reconsideration was alleged “newly discovered” information. Standard Fire “argues that this limitation is warranted by newly discovered information—specifically, the content of the training materials themselves, which counsel reviewed for the first time after the court’s order issued.” [emphasis added].
Plaintiff disagreed, and:
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’s order. Plaintiff further argues that Standard Fire cannot satisfy the “new evidence” standard because the materials at issue were always within its possession, custody, and control, and that counsel’s failure to review those materials prior to the court’s order does not render them newly discovered or previously unavailable.
The Stanisaveljevic court wrote:
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a “motion to reconsider.”.… Nevertheless, such motions are routinely entertained by federal courts.… [emphasis added].
Next, it enunciated the governing standard:
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. … Reconsideration is appropriate where the court has “misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law,” but it is not a vehicle to revisit issues already addressed or to advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.
The Stanisaveljevic court then explained what the term “new evidence” means: “Where a party invokes the ‘new evidence’ ground, the evidence must have been genuinely unavailable at the time of the original briefing and not merely unreviewed…. The critical distinction is between evidence that could not have been obtained and evidence that a party simply chose not to gather.”
The critical distinction is between evidence that could not have been obtained and evidence that a party simply chose not to gather.
Stanisaveljevic v. The Standard Fire Ins. Co., 2026 WL 1129515 (D. Col. Apr. 27, 2026).
Applying those principles, “Standard Fire’s 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’s order and now characterizes certain of them as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s UIM claim. That is not new evidence previously unavailable….”
The Stanisaveljevic court also wrote something that may be important in the ESI context: “The premise of the motion is not that new evidence has come to light. Rather, Standard Fire’s argument is based entirely on the content of its own internal training materials—materials 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’s order, based on its position that Plaintiff’s request was overbroad and disproportional…. That choice had consequences. The information underlying this motion was not ‘previously unavailable’…; 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.” [emphasis added].
The court also rejected relevance arguments, noting that they should have been made previously. It also addressed privilege issues.
Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.
