That’s STJ Lew (Love That Name!) Carluzzo’s riposte to James Elbert Aldridge, Jr. & Shirley Lorraine Aldridge, Docket No. 13742-10,  a designated hitter (and a hitter it is) filed 1/10/14.

Jim and Lorraine want STJ Lew to reconsider his Order dated 12/12/13, which denied their motion to suppress evidence (but apparently what specific evidence upset them they didn’t say at the time).

STJ Lew: “Petitioners’ reliance upon Rules 30 and 37 in support of their motion for reconsideration of Order dated December 12, 2013, filed January 6, 2014 (motion), is misplaced. Those Rules relate to pleadings, not motions. Rulings on motions are governed by Rule 50(b). Contrary to their claim, nothing in any of the Court’s Rules or in any Order directed or entitled petitioners to file a response to respondent’s objection to their motion to suppress evidence.” Order, at p. 1 (footnote omitted).

Takeaway One- Respond only when spoken to by the Court.

STJ Lew again: “Similarly, Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, also relied upon by petitioners in support of their motion, provides no support for it. To the extent applicable to this Court, see Rule 1, and contrary to petitioners’ assertions, that rule provides, with exceptions not relevant here, that the Court ‘is not required to state findings or conclusions when ruling’ on a motion.

Takeaway Two- When it comes to motions, don’t ask for reasons.

Takeaway Three- Read the Rules, closely.

My delightful and charming granddaughter was visiting a couple of days ago. Looking at her and her equally delightful and charming mother, I was reminded of the days, so long ago, when I had to reply to a question from her mother thus: “Because I’m Daddy, that’s why.”