E.D.La.: Parties present their issues timely, not in motions to reconsider

From 10/5 post: Defendant here satisfied his Franks burden of showing a lack of probable cause after the false information was excised. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Wells, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195302 (E.D. La. Oct. 2, 2025).* The government’s motion for reconsideration is denied on a theory never expressed before in this case. United States v. Wells, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 266270 (E.D. La. Dec. 29, 2025). It’s a party’s obligation to raise all their issues timely, not after losing on their original grounds:

It is of no matter that defendant did not argue in his motion to suppress that the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule was inapplicable. It was the government’s burden in defending against suppression to prove that the inevitable discovery exception applied if it wished to pursue such defense. UnitedStates v. Zavala, 541 F.3d 562, 581 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Because the Government has not carried its burden, it is not entitled to the benefit of the inevitable discovery exception.”); Mercadel, 2002 WL 31040171, at *1 (“The government blames its failure to address the applicable standard on the fact that defense counsel did not argue that the exigent circumstances required to enter the defendant’s home were lacking. …

[I]t is the government’s burden to identify and satisfy the applicable legal standard, and not the duty of the moving defendant to inform the government of the applicable law ….”). The government should have “present[ed] its strongest arguments” against suppression “upon initial consideration of [the] matter.” United States v.Rodgers, No. 20-358, 2022 WL 889942, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2022);Gaulden, No. 2022 WL 2294055, at *1 (“[L]itigants are expected to present their strongest case when the matter is first considered.”). Put simply, the government’s invocation of the inevitable discovery doctrine is too late.