PERMENTER et al v. ECLINICAL WORKS LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. 	)
ALEX PERMENTER, 	)
ERIC RODIGHIERO, and 	)
CHRIS WHEELER, 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-382 (MTT)
)
eCLINICALWORKS, LLC, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
)
ORDER
eCW has moved the Court to reconsider the Court’s denial of eCW’s motion to
exclude the opinions of Michael Arrigo. ECF 376. The motion to exclude was filed on
October 30, 2024. ECF 199. The Court ruled on the motion, and all Daubert motions,
during a lengthy hearing on June 4, 2025. ECF 333; 334. The Court DENIES the motion
for reconsideration because it was filed far too late.1
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.6, “Motions for Reconsideration shall not be filed as a
matter of routine practice.” M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.6. Indeed, “reconsideration of a previous
order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.” Bingham v. Nelson, 2010
WL 339806 at *1 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 21, 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). It “is appropriate only if the movant demonstrates (1) that there has been an
intervening change in the law, (2) that new evidence has been discovered which was
1 “With the exception of motions filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), motions for reconsideration shall
be filed within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the order.” M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.6. eCW's motion was filed
on September 2, 2025—ninety days after the Court's Daubert ruling. ECF 376. Thus, its motion for
reconsideration is untimely.
Case 5:18-cv-00382-MTT Document 499 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 3

2
not previously available to the parties in the exercise of due diligence, or (3) that the
court made a clear error of law.” Id. “In order to demonstrate clear error, the party
moving for reconsideration must do more than simply restate his prior arguments, and
any arguments which the party inadvertently failed to raise earlier are deemed waived.”
McCoy v. Macon Water Authority, 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D. Ga. 1997).
Now, eCW’s lawyers don’t style their motion for reconsideration as a motion for
reconsideration. Rather, they style it as a “Motion to Exclude Relators’ Technical
Allegations Untethered to Certification Requirements.” ECF 376. As the Relators
correctly point out, that is a “blatant misnomer” which, they understandably claim, “is yet
another waste of Relators’ and the Court’s time.” ECF 432 at 2. But so that this lost time
will not be a complete waste, the Court uses the motion to correct eCW’s apparent
misunderstanding of the Court’s ruling regarding the scope of expert testimony.
eCW takes a shot at, and misconstrues, a key ruling at the Daubert hearing. ECF
378-1 at 18 n.3. The Court ruled that qualified experts could testify regarding the
technical requirements of the ONC certification criteria. eCW argues that experts can
play no role in explaining such technical specifics. eCW’s real argument is that the
Court should bar the Relators’ experts, but not eCW’s experts, from testifying regarding
those technical criteria.2 For example, eCW argued at the hearing that it was “fair” for
one of its experts, Kyle Meadors, to testify: “Here is my … opinion on what the
regulation means, and my opinion is that it does not prohibit the EKG design choice that
eCW[] made.” ECF 334 at 31. In its motion for reconsideration, eCW argues only the
2 This let-me-do-it-but-not-them argument was used by both sides in their Daubert motions. Both eCW
and Relators launched nearly identical attacks on the other’s expert witnesses that landed with equal
effect on their own experts. As the Court noted at the hearing, “if I were to apply the arguments you each
made across the board, I don’t think you’d have any experts left standing.” ECF 334 at 5.
Case 5:18-cv-00382-MTT Document 499 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Court should interpret the regulations and “no expert [except, presumably, eCW’s
experts] should be permitted to instruct the jury how to read these regulations.” ECF
378-1 at 18 n.3. First, that misstates the Court’s ruling. Second, when the Court asked
eCW’s lawyers where it would look for guidance on how to interpret these technical
specifications, eCW’s lawyers repeatedly fumbled; they had no clue. As the Court made
clear at the Daubert hearing, it will be necessary for the Court and the parties to craft
appropriate jury instructions regarding the ONC certification criteria, but it is beyond
cavil that expert testimony is necessary to understand those specifications.
There is another problem with eCW’s far-too-late motion for reconsideration.
eCW’s timely motion to exclude Arrigo’s opinions (ECF 199), like almost all of the
Daubert motions filed by the parties, was so broad and nonspecific to be meaningless.
As the Court noted at the Daubert motions hearing,
[To] a significant degree, your motions are so broad and nonspecific that in
many respects they could be summarily denied. I am not going to do that.
That would defeat the purpose. We do need to clear up some things, and
we will do that.
ECF 134 at 5. The Court and the parties then spent considerable time crafting a
framework of admissible expert testimony. Now, over a year after eCW filed its Daubert
motion, it wants a do-over. That is not possible.
The Court DENIES eCW’s motion to exclude from this case technical allegations
that are untethered to certification requirements (ECF 376).
SO ORDERED, this 12th day of February, 2026.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 5:18-cv-00382-MTT Document 499 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 3