Motions to Reconsider

Motions to reconsider are prohibited except by express permission of the court, which will be granted only upon a showing of compelling circumstances. Requests to make such a motion, and any responses to such requests, shall be made only by letter to the court of no more than two pages in length, a copy of which must be served on all opposing counsel and self-represented litigants. (Added effective January 1, 1998; amended effective July 1, 2015.) Advisory Committee Comment - 1997 Amendment This rule is derived primarily from Rule 15 of the Local Rules of the Seventh District. Provisions are also included from Rule 8 of the Local Rules of the Second District (2d Dist. R. 8(h)(1) & 8(j)(1)). This rule is intended to create uniform motion practice in all districts of the state. The existing practices diverge in many ways. The inconsistent requirements of having a motion heard impose significant burdens on litigants and their counsel. The Task Force is confident that this new rule Published by the Revisor of Statutes under Minnesota Statutes, section 3C.08, subdivision 1. 119 GENERAL RULES OF PRACTICE MINNESOTA COURT RULES will make civil practice more efficient and fairer, consistent with the goals of the rules of civil procedure set forth in Minn. R. Civ. P. 1. The rule applies to all motions except the timing provisions do not apply to post-trial motions. These motions are excepted because they are governed by other, stringent timing requirements. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.03 (motions for a new trial), 52.02 (amendment of findings), 50.02(c) (time for j.n.o.v. motion same as for new trial motion). Other post-trial motions excluded from this rule include those relating to entry of judgment, stays, taxation of costs, and approval of supersedeas bonds. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 108.01, subdivision 1. These matters are routinely and necessarily heard on shorter notice than that required by the rule. The time limits set forth in this rule were arrived at after extensive discussion. The Task Force attempted to balance the needs of the courts to obtain information on motions sufficiently in advance of the hearing to permit judicial preparation and the needs of counsel and litigants to have prompt hearings after the submission of motions. The time limits for dispositive motions are admittedly longer than the 10-day requirement set forth in Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. The Task Force is of the view that these requirements are not necessarily inconsistent because the rules serve two different purposes. The civil procedure rule establishes a minimum notice period to the adversary, while this provision in the general rules of practice sets forth a standard to facilitate the court's consideration of the motions. The time requirements of this rule may be readily modified by the court, while the minimum notice requirements of Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03 is mandatory unless waived by the parties themselves. See McAllister v. Independent School District No. 306, 276 Minn. 549, 149 N.W.2d 81 (1967). The time limits have been slightly modified from the Task Force's original to reflect the motion practice deadlines now established and followed in the federal court by Minnesota. The local rules of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota were recently amended, effective Feb. 1, 1991. See Rule LR7.1 (b)(1) (D. Minn.) (moving papers for dispositive motions now due 28 days before hearing). The Task Force believes it is desirable to remove minor differences between state and federal court practice where no overriding purpose exists for the differences. The amendment to this rule in 1992 added an express provision for reply briefs. Reply briefs are now allowed for all motions, with the total page limits remaining unchanged. This change is appropriate because of the number of situations where truly new factual or legal matters are raised in response to a motion. In many cases, however, a reply brief will be unnecessary or, where no new matters are raised, inappropriate. The requirement that reply briefs be served and filed three days before the hearing contemplates actual delivery three days before the hearing is scheduled. If service or filing will be accomplished by mail, the deadline is three days earlier by operation of Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.02 & 6.05 and Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.01(b). The statements of facts required by this rule are made for the purpose of the then-pending motion only, and are not to be judicial admissions for other purposes. The Task Force modified the existing local rule in the seventh district to remove any provision that might suggest that summary judgment motions would be treated as defaults if the required statements of fact were not submitted or that might be interpreted to reduce the factual record for summary judgment motions from that specified in Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.05. This will avoid the conflict dealt with by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Bunkowske v. Briard, 461 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). Counsel seeking to have the court consider matters located elsewhere in the court file will need to identify those materials in the statements of facts required by the rule, but will not have to refile the documents.