Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Williams

Filing 134

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: William's Motion to Reconsider (DE 112 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 8/31/2012. (TDA)cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AT PIKEVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:10-87-KKC
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA, LLC,

PLAINTIFF

v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

KEVIN WILLIAMS,

DEFENDANT
*** *** *** ***

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration [DE 112] of
this Courts Memorandum Opinion and Order [DE 110] granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment and denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. For the following reasons,
Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
Motions to reconsider are evaluated under the same standard as a motion to alter or
amend a judgment under Rule 59(e). Howard v. Magoffin Co. Bd. of Educ., 830 F. Supp. 2d 308,
319 (E.D. Ky. 2012) (citing Keith v. Bobby, 618 F.3d 594, 597-98 (6th Cir. 2010)). To succeed,
Williams must show one of the following: “(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.” Id. (quoting Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 615
(6th Cir. 2010)).
With respect to Parts II.A-C of the Court’s opinion, Williams does not argue the Court
committed any clear error of law, cite newly discovered evidence, or reference an intervening

change of controlling law. Williams just reasserts his prior arguments that have been fully
addressed in the Opinion.
Williams argues that the Court should reconsider Section II.D of its Opinion that granted
Chesapeake Summary Judgment on the issue of the horse trailer near the well access road. In his
motion to reconsider, Williams cites “new” evidence—photographs of the road and an affidavit
that the road is traversable by two-wheel drive vehicles. Although this evidence is “new” in the
sense that it was not in the record prior to Williams’s motion for reconsideration, it is not “newly
discovered evidence” that may warrant reconsideration under Rule 59(e). “To constitute ‘newly
discovered evidence,’ the evidence must have been previously unavailable.” GenCorp, Inc. v.
Am. Intern. Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing School Distirct No. 1J v.
AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). Williams offers no evidence or argument that
any of the evidence cited in his motion for reconsideration was “previously unavailable.”
Accordingly, Williams’s Motion to Reconsider [DE 112] is DENIED.
So ORDERED
Dated this 31st day of August, 2012.