WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS, United States District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration [DE 53]. The Court has carefully considered the motion and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
This Court entered a final order of forfeiture upon granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [DE 51 and 52]. Defendant now moves for reconsideration, on the grounds that new evidence was discovered and therefore the Court needs to correct and enter a new order. The "new" evidence is the January 8, 2001 transcript of the plea hearing of witness Howard Kratenstein. The Court had relied in part upon Kratenstein's affidavit in granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Kratenstein is a co-defendant with the deceased owner of the Defendant real property in a related criminal action. The Plaintiff opposes the instant motion.
First, the Court notes that just because Defendant's counsel did not discovery the Kratenstein plea transcript until after this Court's final order, does not make such discover one of new evidence supporting granting of reconsideration. Everyone in the case knew that Kratenstein was a co-defendant of the deceased property owner in a criminal proceeding in this District. In fact, in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Defendant questioned Kratenstein's credibility, arguing (via the Jon Christenson affidavit) that the Kratenstein affidavit itself was procured via Kratenstein's plea bargain with the Government, and therefore is questionable. Now Defendant makes the additional arguments that, due to Kratenstein's admission that he has a fifth grade reading level and due to his receiving immunity, such evidence shows that the affidavit relied upon by the Court was not credible or was not comprehended by Kratenstein.
The Court notes that it is not uncommon for attorneys to draft affidavits for later ratification upon signature by the affiant. As long as Kratenstein understood what he was swearing to, the affidavit need not be written by him.
The Court concludes that reconsideration is not warranted. There is no newly discovered evidence, in that the plea transcript from January 8, 2001 could have been discovered before the Court's May 15, 2002 final order of forfeiture, particularly since the existence of the criminal action in which the plea was taken was known to Defendant. The plea transcript has been a public record since it was filed in the court file on February 5, 2001 in case number 99-6266 CR-Middlebrooks [DE-311].
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration [DE 53] is hereby DENIED.