PUBLISH
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 6/20/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
____________________
CATHERINE ANN BENNE, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) No. 95-3026
v. )
)
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES )
CORP. and GATEWAY 2000, INC., )
)
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas
(D.C. No. 94-1181-PFK)
____________________
Kenneth E. Meiser of Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein, Watter & Blader,
P.C., Lawrenceville, New Jersey (Arnold C. Lakind of Szaferman,
Lakind, Blumstein, Watter & Blader, P.C., Lawrenceville, New
Jersey, Albert L. Kamas of Render, Kamas & Hammond, Wichita, Kansas
with him on the brief) for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Gerald Sawatzky of Foulston & Seifkin, Wichita, Kansas (Trisha A.
Thelen and Jeff P. DeGraffenreid of Foulston & Seifkin, Wichita,
Kansas, James F. Duncan, Katherine J. Rodgers and Kristine S. Focht
of Watson & Marshall, L.C., Kansas City, Missouri, Josesph A.
D'Avanzo and Maria J. Morreale of Cerussi and Spring, White Plains,
New York with him on the brief) for Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and JONES, * Circuit Judges.
____________________
JONES, Circuit Judge.
____________________
*
Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
Plaintiff Catherine Benne appeals the entry of summary
judgment for Defendants International Business Machines (IBM) and
Gateway 2000 (Gateway) in her diversity personal injury action.
Concluding that Benne had filed her claims past the period allowed
by the appropriate state statutes of limitations, the district
court granted summary judgment for Defendants. For the following
reasons we affirm the judgment of the district court.
I.
From 1979 to 1992, Benne was employed in Kansas as a secretary
and x-ray technician for an orthopaedic physician, Dr. Ernest
Schlachter. Between fifty and sixty percent of Benne's time was
spent typing on either an IBM typewriter keyboard or a Gateway
computer keyboard. As a result of typing extensively over this
thirteen year period on keyboards manufactured by IBM and Gateway,
Benne developed carpal tunnel syndrome and overuse syndrome.
In 1984 Benne developed numbness, tingling, and swelling in
her hands. Dr. Schlachter examined Benne and referred her to a
specialist. Dr. Schlachter subsequently filed a report with the
Kansas Division of Workers' Compensation that indicated he was
retaining Benne as an employee despite knowing that she suffered
from "overuse syndrome of both arms." Appendix at 157. In 1985,
Schlachter filed an Employer's Report of Accident with the Kansas
Division of Workers' Compensation in which he indicated that Benne
had been injured at work. Id. at 155-56. Schlachter described the
injury as "bilateral carpal tunnel tendonitis and left entrapment
2
neuropathy at the elbow of the ulnar nerve." Id. at 156. The
report cited the cause of the accident as "repetitive use typing,
filing, and other office work." Id. at 385. Benne typed this
report and therefore knew of its contents.
Benne's symptoms intensified in 1987. Dr. Schlachter
confirmed that the aggravation of Benne's condition was caused by
an increase in Benne's typing responsibilities. On November 9,
1988, the Workers' Compensation Fund was ordered to pay Benne
because Dr. Schlachter had knowingly retained a handicapped
employee and, but for her prior injuries, Benne would not have
suffered permanent impairment.
Benne alleges that the nature of her injuries changed in 1989.
As part of a motion for reconsideration of the district court's
ruling on summary judgment, Dr. Schlachter submitted an affidavit
claiming that Benne sustained new and qualitatively different
injuries on and after December 18, 1989. His conclusions were
based on "new and qualitatively different symptoms from those
[Benne] had complained of on or prior to December 18, 1989."
Appendix at 385.
In 1992, Benne and thirteen other plaintiffs filed tort
actions against IBM and Gateway in the Eastern District of New
York. Benne asserted negligence and products liability claims,
alleging that negligence in the design of Defendants' keyboards
caused her repetitive stress injuries. Benne's case was
consolidated with other repetitive stress injury cases. See In re
Repetitive Stress Injury Cases, 142 F.R.D. 584 (E.D.N.Y. 1992).
3
Subsequently, the Second Circuit reversed the district court and
deconsolidated the cases. In re Repetitive Stress Injury
Litigation, 11 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 1993). After the deconsolidation
order, Defendants moved to transfer Benne's case to the District of
Kansas, where the injuries arose. The district court granted the
motion and the case was transferred.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on the theory that
Benne's action was barred by the New York statute of limitations.
Applying the conflicts of law principles of New York, the
transferor state, the district court determined that to be timely,
Benne must have brought her claim in time to satisfy both the New
York and Kansas statutes of limitations. The district court then
found that Benne's action was brought outside of the time limit
permitted by either state's statute. Accordingly, the district
court entered summary judgment for Defendants. Benne filed a
motion for reconsideration based upon the submission of new
affidavits. The district court denied the motion.
Benne now appeals, raising the following issues regarding the
district court's grant of summary judgment: (1) whether the
district court erred by applying the New York conflicts of law
statute; (2) whether the district court erred in finding that
Benne's action was time barred by the Kansas statute of
limitations; and (3) whether the district court erred in finding
that Benne's action was time barred by the New York statute of
limitations. Benne also appeals the denial of her motion for
reconsideration, alleging that the district court abused its
4
discretion.
II.
We review the entry of summary judgment de novo, applying the
same standard used by the district court. Henderson v. Inter-Chem
Coal Co., 41 F.3d 567, 569 (10th Cir. 1996). Summary judgment is
proper where the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits,
if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and
that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In considering a motion for summary
judgment, the court must examine all evidence in a light most
favorable to the opposing party. McKenzie v. Mercy Hosp. of
Independence, Kansas , 854 F.2d 365, 367 (10th Cir. 1988).
A.
We first resolve whether the district court properly used the
New York statute of limitations, the transferor state, and whether
Defendants waived the New York statute of limitations as a defense
to Benne's claims.
Pursuant to Defendants' request, the district court granted a
change of venue from the Eastern District of New York to the
District of Kansas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404. The rule is settled
that when a district court grants a venue change pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404, the transferee court is obligated to apply the law
of the state in which the transferor court sits. Van Dusen v.
5
Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 639 (1964); see also Ferens v. John Deere
Co., 494 U.S. 516, 523 (1990). This rule applies whether the
plaintiff or the defendant initiates the change in venue. Ferens,
494 U.S. at 523.
Benne alleges that despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Van
Dusen, Defendants are estopped from pleading the statute of
limitations as a defense, because Defendants argued in the district
court that the substantive laws of Kansas applied. Benne correctly
notes that in some instances, defendants may be estopped from
pleading the statute of limitations. For example, when a plaintiff
is induced by fraud, misrepresentations, or deception to refrain
from filing a timely action, a defendant may be estopped to plead
the statute of limitations as a defense. Simicuski v. Saeli, 377
N.E.2d 713, 716 (N.Y. 1978).
Even if the defendants argument's in the New York district
court for application of Kansas substantive law could require a
change from New York to Kansas statute of limitations, the doctrine
of equitable estoppel would be inapplicable here. Benne filed her
action in New York. At the time she filed her suit, she had notice
of both the applicable New York and Kansas statutes of limitation.
Now, she would have the court apply the Kansas statute of
limitations because of arguments Defendants made before the
district court. Benne's choice of New York on both the substantive
tort issues and the accompanying statute of limitations was not in
any manner affected by the actions of Defendants. Neither
Defendant induced her to file her action in New York rather than
6
Kansas. All that the Defendants have been able to accomplish is a
change in venue. For precisely this type of case, the Supreme
Court has concluded that the substantive laws applicable to the
case will not change by the Defendants transfer of venue. Benne
simply has failed to demonstrate how the doctrine of equitable
estoppel is in any manner designed to grant relief to a plaintiff
in these circumstances.
Giving effect to Benne's arguments would squarely contradict
the reasoning employed by the Supreme Court in Van Dusen and
Ferens. In Van Dusen, the Supreme Court reasoned that a venue
transfer initiated by the defendant should not deprive the
plaintiff of the laws of the forum that the plaintiff had selected.
Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 635-36. The Court noted that the
legislative history of § 1404(a) "certainly does not justify the
rather startling conclusion that one might `get a change of law as
a bonus for a change of venue.'" Id. at 636. Allowing a change of
law to accompany a change of venue, the Court opined, would violate
the principles of the Erie doctrine. See Erie R.R. Co. v.
Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). The Court held it must "ensure that
the `accident' of federal diversity jurisdiction does not enable a
party to utilize a transfer to achieve a result in federal court
which could not have been achieved in the courts of the State where
the action was filed." Id. at 638.
Furthermore, in Ferens, the Supreme Court held that when a
plaintiff initiates a change of venue pursuant to section 1404, the
substantive law of transferor court's state, including statutes of
7
limitations, will apply throughout the litigation. Therefore, the
law of the transferor court must apply, regardless of who initiates
the change. The rule articulated in the Ferens and Van Dusen
decisions prevents either party from shopping for better
limitations law after the case is filed.
We agree with the district court's rejection of Greve v.
Gibraltar Enters., Inc. , 85 F. Supp. 410 (D.N.M. 1949), the main
case on which Benne relies. Like the district court, we question
its applicability to the present case. Greve, a 1949 decision,
involved a defendant's motion for a change of venue from the
District of New Mexico to the District of Colorado. Since the
plaintiff originally brought the action in New Mexico, the
defendant pleaded the New Mexico statute of limitations. The
district court in Greve was faced with the task of interpreting §
1404 for the first time. The court suspected that with a transfer
of venue under § 1404, only the place of trial changed, not the
rights of the parties or any of the underlying substantive law. In
doing so, the district court anticipated the Supreme Court's
interpretation of § 1404 in Van Dusen and Ferens. However,
concerned that it may have misinterpreted § 1404, the court ruled
in the alternative that the defendant had waived application of the
Colorado statute of limitations. In the hearing on the venue
transfer motion, the defendant stated in open court that it would
not frustrate plaintiff's action in the event of a transfer to
Colorado by pleading the since expired Colorado statute of
limitations. The district court stated that in the event it had
8
misinterpreted § 1404, it could rely on defendant's promise not to
plead the more restrictive Colorado statute to ensure that the New
Mexico statute of limitation would be applied.
Benne analogizes her case to Greve. She contends that a
number of assertions made by Defendants before the district court
amounted to a waiver of the application of the New York statute of
limitations. For example, Defendants stated in their brief in
support of their venue transfer motion:
Clearly, New York substantive law cannot apply to these
actions. The plaintiffs, their employments, their
injuries and the witnesses have no connection whatsoever
to New York. Thus the law governing each plaintiff's
prima facie case, the availability of defenses, issues of
contributory negligence and punitive damages vary from
state to state.
Appendix at 253. Benne also points to assertions in two affidavits
accompanying this motion which state Defendants' understanding that
the substantive laws of New York did not apply to Benne's action.
We must discount Benne's reliance on Greve for two reasons.
First, Greve is factually distinguishable from Benne's case. In
Greve, the defendants clearly stated that they would not plead the
Colorado statute of limitations. The court held this was a waiver
of the defense of the Colorado statute of limitations. In
contrast, the general assertions made by Defendants in this case
fall short of an absolute waiver. Furthermore, when Defendants in
this case argued that Kansas substantive law should apply, the
record reveals that Defendants were making a conflicts of law
argument, not an argument over the general applicability of New
York or Kansas law. Instead of arguing, as Benne would have the
9
court believe, that Kansas substantive law and statutes of
limitation should apply outright, Defendants are arguing that the
proper application of New York substantive law would eventually
lead to the application of Kansas substantive law. This argument
is based upon New York's conflict principles that call for the
application of another state's substantive law in tort actions
where the wrong occurs in another state. Cooney v. Osgood Mach.,
Inc., 612 N.E. 2d 277, 281-82 (N.Y. 1993); Schultz v. Boy Scouts of
America, Inc., 480 N.E. 2d 679, 682 (N.Y. 1985). Even were a
defendant permitted to waive the statute of limitations of the
transferor state in favor of the statute of the transferee state,
we cannot consider the arguments made by Defendants in this case to
be such a waiver of New York substantive law. The Defendants in
this case were clearly arguing that within the framework of the
laws of the New York, the laws of Kansas would control.
Second, as the district court noted, the continued validity of
the court's alternative holding Greve is questionable after the
Supreme Court's decisions in Van Dusen and Ferens. The law of
these cases is clear. The transferee court has the obligation to
apply the law of the transferor state, regardless of the attempts
of the parties to change which body of substantive law applies to
their claims. To the extent Greve is inconsistent with this
doctrine, as announced in Ferens and Van Dusen, it is overruled.
This is not to say that a defendant can never waive application of
a statute of limitations in a venue transfer case. As mentioned
above, if a defendant, either by fraud, deceit, or
10
misrepresentation, prevented plaintiff from filing a timely claim
in the transferor state, then estoppel or waiver of the statute of
limitations is possible. Further, a defendant may always choose
not to plead the defense of the statute of limitations, in which
case, the limiations perioed would not become an issue. Note,
however, that this would be a matter strictly involving the
application of the law of the transferor state, not a matter of the
defendant's actions causing the court to resort to the statute of
limitations of the transferee state.
Ultimately, we find it is curious that Plaintiff Benne, who
had the opportunity to choose the forum of New York, would now
argue that the laws of New York should not apply to her claim.
Benne's peculiar position aside, the holdings of Van Dusen and
Ferens require us to affirm the district court's application of the
New York statute of limitations.
B.
Having determined that the district court correctly held that
the New York statute of limitations applied to the transferred
case, we now turn to whether the district court correctly applied
the New York statute.
When applying the New York statute of limitations to an action
arising outside of the state, the first step is to refer to the
"borrowing statute." See N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R. § 202 (McKinney,
1990). The section provides:
An action based upon a cause of action accruing without
11
the state cannot be commenced after the expiration of the
time limited by the laws of either the state or the place
without the state where the cause of action accrued,
except that where the cause of action accrued in favor of
a resident of the state the time limited by the laws of
the state shall apply.
Id. Therefore, to survive Defendants' motion for summary judgment,
Benne's claims must have been timely under both the limitations
periods of New York and Kansas. See Antone v. General Motors
Corp., Buick Motors Div., 473 N.E. 2d 742, 744 (N.Y. 1984) (where
non-residents claim accrued outside of New York, his action must be
timely under both states' limitations periods).
1.
The Kansas statute of limitations provides that an action for
personal injuries must be brought within two years. Kan. Stat.
Ann. § 60-513(a)(4). Such a cause of action:
shall not be deemed to have accrued until the act giving
rise to the cause of action first causes substantial
injury or, if the fact of the injury is not reasonably
ascertainable until sometime after the initial act, then
the period of limitation shall not commence until the
fact of injury becomes reasonably ascertainable to the
injured party . . . .
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-513(b). The difficulty in Benne's claim lies
in determining when "the fact of [Benne's] injury" became
"reasonably ascertainable." Id. The leading Kansas case on fact
of injury is Gilger v. Lee Constr. Inc., 820 P.2d 390 (Kan. 1991),
a Kansas Supreme Court case. In Gilger, the plaintiffs suffered
numerous health problems caused by an improperly vented furnace.
The plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought out the cause of their
12
ailments for three years before learning that the furnace was
improperly installed. Plaintiffs investigated a number of avenues
in their search for the source of their recurring illnesses. They
had the furnace checked for gas leaks, increased ventilation in the
room at the direction of an inspector, and removed a bird's nest
from the flue. When their health problems did not subside,
plaintiffs had the furnace inspected twice more. It was not until
an inspection in 1985 that plaintiffs learned the furnace had been
improperly installed. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed a motion
for summary judgment, which had been granted to defendants, holding
that whether the Gilgers' injuries were reasonably ascertainable
under the circumstances before 1985 was a question of fact to be
resolved by a jury.
Benne claims that Gilger should likewise lead to a reversal of
the summary judgment in her case because she did not realize that
the keyboards had been negligently designed until 1992. Benne
acknowledges that she was injured by 1985 and also admits she knew
the cause of her injury was excessive typing on Gateway and IBM
keyboards. She claims, however, that her injuries were not
reasonably ascertainable until 1992 because she had no reason to
believe IBM and Gateway were negligent in their keyboard design
until 1992.
Benne argues that her knowledge that the keyboards caused the
injury would not trigger the statute of limitations until she made
the inference that a negligent design of the product, and not mere
overuse of the product, caused her injury. In making this
13
argument, Benne relies on Hecht v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co.,
490 P.2d 649 (Kan. 1971), which was cited by the court in Gilger.
In Hecht, a plaintiff suffered skin damage from a negligently
performed radiation treatment. For a while after the injury, the
plaintiff thought her injuries were merely part of the recovery
process. Her doctor had informed her she was healing as she
should. Finally, when her condition did not improve, plaintiff
sought a second opinion and learned she needed surgery to correct
her injuries. In denying defendant's motion for summary judgment
on the statute of limitations issue, the court stated:
Since the evidence presented, as we see it, is
inconclusive as to what point in time plaintiff's injury
could be said to be substantial or reasonably
ascertainable, we conclude that plaintiff should be
afforded an opportunity to prove that she neither knew
nor could reasonably have been expected to know of
defendant's alleged negligence until the date alleged in
her petition [January 1967]. A summary judgment based on
the premise that plaintiff on March 13, 1966, knew or
could have reasonably ascertained that she had suffered
substantial injury result[ing] from alleged acts of
negligence of defendants necessitated a finding of fact
which was, we believe, in good faith disputed.
Gilger, 820 P.2d at 399-400 (citing Hecht, 490 P.2d at 649).
Benne interprets this language as setting forth the rule that
a plaintiff's knowledge of the cause of her injuries is irrelevant
until she realizes that the designer of the product may have acted
negligently. We do not believe that the Kansas Supreme Court
intended to establish the rule that a plaintiff could be fully
aware of the cause of her injury, yet wait to bring a claim based
upon negligent design some indeterminate time later when the
plaintiff develops the thought that the defendant may have been
14
negligent. Rather we believe the rule from Hecht is intended to
give plaintiffs who suffer from latent or difficult to diagnose
injuries the same advantages as those plaintiffs whose injuries are
immediately connectible to their source.
Benne fails to recognize that no plaintiff ever knows prior to
her suit whether the defendant is negligent. Whether a defendant
is negligent is a matter to be resolved by a jury. Until this
legal determination is made, a plaintiff can only allege negligence
on the defendant's part. The Kansas law does not give plaintiff an
infinite amount of time, after learning the cause of her injuries,
to ponder whether the equipment injured her because of defendant's
negligence or because of other reasons. The plaintiff must take
the initiative within the limitations period to set out to prove
defendant's negligence. Otherwise, claims would survive for such
extensive periods of time that the statute of limitations could be
completely eviscerated.
Kansas' "fact of injury" standard postpones the running of the
limitations period until the time the plaintiff is able to
determine that her injury may be caused by some act of the
defendant. The court stated in denying the summary judgment motion
in Gilger, "there are disputed facts as to when the appellants
realized their health problems were associated with the allegedly
improperly ventilated furnace." Gilger, 82 P.2d at 400 (emphasis
added). In Benne's case, there is no disputed fact as to when she
realized her problems were associated with the keyboards. Benne's
claim is similar to the claim in Friends Univ. v. W.R. Grace & Co.,
15
in which the plaintiff tried to bring a claim for an improperly
installed roof seven years after it began to leak. 608 P.2d 936
(Kan. 1980). The plaintiffs alleged that they did not realize
until two years before they brought their claim that the leaks were
caused by defendant's failure to bond the roofing material to the
substructure and therefore they had not reasonably ascertained the
cause of the leaks. The Supreme Court of Kansas held that
plaintiffs claims fell outside of the limitations period. In
commenting on Friends University in Gilger, the court stated:
"[w]e determined plaintiff's failure to know the exact scientific
nature of the problem did not toll the commencement of the statute
of limitations where it was clearly apparent there was a severe
problem with the roof caused by defective design, materials, or
workmanship in 1970." Gilger, 820 P.2d at 400 (referencing and
citing Friends Univ. 608 P.2d at 941).
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Benne, we
conclude that she may not have become aware of the possibility that
Defendants' negligence could have caused her injuries until as late
as 1992, when she filed suit. Notwithstanding her lack of
knowledge of the exact scientific nature of her injuries, until
1989, by as early as 1987, she knew her injury was associated with
excessive typing on Defendants' keyboards. The statute of
limitations commenced running at that time. Accordingly, Benne's
claims should have been brought no later than 1989. We hold that
the district court correctly concluded that Benne's cause of action
was barred by the Kansas two-year statute of limitations.
16
2.
In New York, an action to recover damages for personal
injuries, including strict product liability, must be commenced
within three years from the date the cause of action accrues.
Unlike the Kansas limitations statute, the New York limitations
period commences on the date of injury. N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R. §
214 (McKinney 1990); Snyder v. Town Insulation, Inc. , 615 N.E.2d
999, 1000-01 (N.Y. 1993). The injury itself, rather than the
negligent act by defendant or the discovery of the wrong by
plaintiff, marks the date of accrual. Piper v. International
Business Machs., 639 N.Y.2d 623, 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) (citing
Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp., 612 N.E.2d 289 (1993)). New York courts
have recently affirmed this rule as it applies to repetitive stress
injuries such as Benne's. See Piper, 639 N.Y.2d at 624; In re New
York County Data Entry Worker Product Liability Litigation, 1994 WL
900221 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1994). In Piper the court held that the
limitations period commenced to run when the plaintiff first
experienced symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome, not when the
symptoms developed into a diagnosable condition. Piper, 639 N.Y.2d
at 623.
The district court found that Benne's injury manifested itself
in 1985, at the latest, when she was diagnosed with overuse
syndrome of both arms, bilateral carpal tunnel tendinitis, and left
entrapment neuropathy at the elbow of the ulnar nerve. Based upon
this diagnosis, the district court did not err in holding Benne's
claim barred by the New York statute of limitations.
17
III.
After the district court entered judgment for Defendants,
Benne moved for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). She claimed that certain aspects of her injuries
still made her claim timely under the New York statute of
limitations. We review the district court's denial of this motion
for abuse of discretion. Webber v. Mefford , 43 F.3d 1340, 1345
(10th Cir. 1994).
An exception to New York's strict statute of limitations
exists "where a plaintiff, first injured prior to the three year
statutory period alleges qualitatively different injuries occurring
within the statutory period." Kuechler v. 805 Middlesex Corp., 866
F. Supp. 147, 148 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). The plaintiff may sustain
claims based on the new and distinct injuries. Id. In support of
her claims, Benne submitted an affidavit stating that the symptoms
she suffered after December 18, 1989 were new and qualitatively
different than the symptoms she suffered before that date. Her
physician, Dr. Schlachter also submitted an affidavit attesting to
the same changes in Benne's symptoms.
A Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider should be granted only "to
correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered
evidence." Committee for the First Amendment v. Campbell, 962 F.2d
1517, 1523 (10th Cir. 1992) (quoting Hansco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779
F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985, cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986)).
The district court denied Benne's motion, concluding that no
manifest error of law had been committed in the first decision and
18
that the factual statements that Benne submitted were inadmissible
due to their conclusory nature. Based upon the limited scope
provided for granting a motion to reconsider, we hold that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Benne's
motion.
No manifest error of law was committed because the district
court followed New York precedents that establish when the
limitations period commences for a repetitive stress injury suit.
The district court did not depart from established law. Second,
the evidence presented by Benne in her affidavits was not newly
discovered. In the affidavits, Benne and Dr. Schlachter allege the
nature of Benne's injuries changed on or around December 18, 1989.
This information could not have been newly discovered when the
district court granted summary judgment to the Defendants in 1994.
IV.
We therefore hold that the district court neither erred in its
application of the law nor abused its discretion in denying Benne's
motion for reconsideration. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM
the district court's grant of summary judgment for Defendants IBM
and Gateway, as well as the court's denial of Benne's motion for
reconsideration.
19