DARNELL ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. A. FUSON, et al., Defendants Civil Action No. 6: 20-118-DCR United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky Signed December 21, 2021 Counsel Darnell Anderson, Tucson, AZ, Pro Se. Cheryl D. Morgan, AUSA, U.S. Attorney's Office, Lexington, KY, for Defendants A. Fuson, L. Chaney, D. Gabbard. Reeves, Danny C., United States District Judge MEMORANDUM ORDER *1 Plaintiff Darnell Anderson has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's denial of his motions to compel discovery responses. [See Record Nos. 63, 67, 68.] United States Magistrate Judge Matthew A. Stinnett entered an Order denying Anderson's requests on September 3, 2021, and informing Anderson that he had 14 days to file any objections to the rulings. [Record No. 80] Anderson failed to file objections within the time permitted. On December 10, 2021, Anderson filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's order.[1] [Record No. 85] The Court denied Anderson's motion the same day, noting that he had not shown good cause to permit the filing of late objections to an Order filed more than three months prior. [Record No. 86] Apparently hoping to circumvent the Court's denial of an extension, Anderson has now filed a motion to reconsider the Magistrate Judge's September 3, 2021 Order. [Record No. 88] District courts review motions to reconsider under the same standard as motions to alter or amend under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Huff v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 675 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir. 1982). To prevail under Rule 59(e), the movant must show: (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice. Betts v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 558 F.3d 461, 474 (6th Cir. 2009). A motion under Rule 59(e) is not an opportunity to reargue a case. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998). However, Anderson attempts to do exactly that, as he maintains that the defendants have not provided complete disclosure of the video footage he requested. However, his motion does not appear to raise any new arguments and he certainly does not raise any point that could not have been raised in timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order. While pleadings filed by pro se litigants are entitled to liberal construction, pro se litigants must comply with court rules and directives. United States v. Sasaki, 2016 WL 11755057, at *1 (6th Cir. June 27, 2016). The plaintiff also has filed a motion to conduct additional interrogatories. [Record No. 89] In support, Anderson reports that the defendants have advised him that he has exceeded the number of interrogatories allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He contends that he seeks to serve additional interrogatories on the defendants to procure evidence “that is essential to [his] Complaint.” He is “unsure as to how many additional interrogatories will be needed,” but he is “seeking to procure all evidence in an inexpensive manner.” Id. The fact that a party represents himself “does not entitle him to ignore the procedural rules for conducting discovery.” Thatcher v. Warden, 2012 WL 5496503, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 13, 2012). In determining whether additional interrogatories are warranted, the Court must determine “whether the requesting party has adequately shown that the benefits of additional interrogatories outweigh the burden to the opposing parties.” Shaw Grp., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2014 WL 1816494, at *8 (M.D. La. May 7, 2014); St. Ann v. McLean, 2017 WL 5732991, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 28, 2017) (observing that a party requesting leave to serve additional discovery requests must make a particularized showing to establish a need for those additional requests). Here, Anderson has not stated the expected number of additional interrogatories, the subject matter, or why they are necessary. Accordingly, the Court cannot determine whether the benefit of additional interrogatories outweighs the burden to the defendants and the motion will be denied. *2 Being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff's motions for reconsideration and to conduct/submit additional interrogatories [Record Nos. 88, 89] are DENIED. Footnotes [1] Anderson alleged that he did not receive the Magistrate Judge's Order until November 24, 2021. Assuming the truth of that statement, he had until December 8 to file objections.