EQT Production Company v. Magnum Hunter Production, Inc.

Filing 98

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: The Plaintiff's 93 MOTION for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 08/15/2017.(LC)cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
MAGNUM HUNTER PRODUCTION
COMPANY,
Defendant.

Action No. 5:16-cv-150-JMH

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

****
I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is at bar upon Plaintiff EQT Production Company’s

motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and
Order dated July 19, 2017 [DE 77].

EQT’s motion is directed

specifically at the Court’s conclusion denying its claim for breach
of

contract

related

calculations [DE 93].

to

improper

deductions

from

NGL

royalty

For the reasons which follow, EQT’s motion

is DENIED.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
EQT and Magnum Hunter are in the business of producing and
selling oil and natural gas.

[DE 1, p. 1-2, ¶ 1-6].

Between 1996

and 2002, the predecessors in interest of both companies entered
into

eleven

Farmout

Agreements

(“FOAs”),

which

allocated

exploration and drilling rights on lands situated in Eastern

1

Kentucky.

[Id. at p. 2-5, ¶ 9].

Specifically, the FOAs allowed

Magnum Hunter to drill wells on lands owned or leased by EQT and
sell oil and/or gas produced from those wells.

[Id.].

In

exchange, EQT would receive a royalty from Magnum Hunter based on
those sales.

[Id.].

EQT alleges that Magnum Hunter breached the

terms of the FOAs by failing to pay the appropriate royalties, as
well as other fees.

[DE 1, p. 8, ¶ 26].

After discovery closed, the parties filed competing motions
for summary judgment on the various issues including the one
subject of the motion at bar.

After an exhaustive consideration

of the materials submitted by the parties, the Court denied EQT’s
claim for breach of contract related to improper deductions from
NGL royalty calculations.
III. ANALYSIS
First, my colleague Judge Reeves, in discussing motions for
reconsideration, wrote:
Although motions to reconsider interlocutory
orders are not expressly contemplated by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Sixth
Circuit has held that district courts have
discretion to reconsider such orders under the
common law and Rule 54(b). Rodriguez v. Tenn.
Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F. App'x
949, 959 (6th Cir.2004) (unpublished) (citing
Mallory v. Eyrich, 922 F.2d 1273, 1282 (6th
Cir.1991)). Reconsideration is appropriate
when there has been a change in controlling
law since the decision was made; when new
2

evidence has become available; or when it is
necessary “to correct a clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.” Id. (citing Reich v. Hall
Holding Co., 990 F.Supp. 955, 965 (N.D.Ohio
1998)). Reconsideration is not required,
however, when the movant simply wishes to
present evidence that was available prior to
the court's decision but was not raised. See
id.; see also Am. Marietta Corp. v. Essroc
Cement Corp., 59 F. App'x 668, 672 (6th
Cir.2003)
(unpublished)
(
“Motions
to
reconsider must rely on new evidence and not
information readily available during the prior
proceedings.”); Owensboro Grain Co. v. AUI
Contracting, LLC, No. 4:08CV-94-JHM, 2009 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 18025, at *6, 2009 WL 650456
(W.D.Ky. Mar. 10, 2009) (“A motion to
reconsider under Rule 54(b) ... may not serve
as a vehicle to identify facts or raise legal
arguments which could have been, but were not,
raised or adduced during the pendency of the
motion of which reconsideration [is] sought.”
(ellipsis in original) (quotations omitted)).

Byrne v. Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP, No. CIV.A. 2:08-102-DCR, 2009
WL 5064451, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 16, 2009).

Applying this

standard, the Court finds the motion at bar lacks merit.
Second, the Court, in a recent Memorandum Opinion and Order
[DE 90], gave fair warning that it was disinclined to consider any
such motion:
As a final matter, the Court notes that both
parties have expressed an intent to request
reconsideration of matters that the Court
decided in its Memorandum Opinion and Order.
For example, EQT indicates that it will
continue to argue about the NGL claim, while
Magnum Hunter asks the Court to reconsider its
ruling on prejudgment interest. [DE 79 at p.
3

6, n. 6; 84 at p. 1, n. 1].
The parties
briefed
these
issues
in
great
detail,
submitted voluminous exhibits in support of
their
respective
positions,
and
then
supplemented those filings. The Court reviewed
all
of
these
documents
and
thoroughly
considered each argument before issuing its
Memorandum Opinion and Order. Because the
Court has already devoted ample time and
effort to the adjudication of these issues,
and
because
the
trial
date
is
fast
approaching, the Court is disinclined to
consider any such Motions.
The parties need to spend more time resolving the issues which
remain rather than rearguing issues which have been resolved.

IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff EQT Production Company’s motion
for reconsideration [DE 93] be, and it hereby is, DENIED.
This the 18th day of August, 2017.

4