United States of America v. Peters et al

Filing 96

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Gerald Peters' "Response to Memorandum and Order of 5/27/2014" is DENIED. (Doc. No. 92.) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 7/21/2014. (NCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
GERALD PETERS, et al.,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:12CV01395AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Gerald Peters’ “Response to
Memorandum and Order of 5/27/2014,” which the Court will construe as a motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s order denying Defendants request to reopen discovery and
offer additional evidence in response to the United States’ motion for summary judgment.
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion will be denied.
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Court’s previous ruling, asserting that he
did not have an opportunity to fully brief his response to the motion, and asking the Court
to consider as new evidence an “amended 2002 tax return, associated letter and exhibits.”
Doc. No. 92, at 2. In addition, Defendant raises new arguments and re-raises objections
to the United States’ calculation of Defendants’ tax liability, which he raised and the
Court considered at the time of the ruling on the challenged motion. Defendant also
states that although he admitted to the amount of the tax liability in his initial responses to

the United States’ requests for admission, he only did so at the advice of counsel and
might have responded differently at a later point in the litigation.
“Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence . . . . Such motions cannot be used to
introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have
been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.” United States v. Metro. St. Louis
Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Rule 59(e) does not permit a party to re-litigate matters previously resolved by the court
or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment, unless good cause is shown for such failure. Holder v. United States, 721
F.3d 979, 986 (8th Cir. 2013).
Upon review of the motion, the Court concludes that the request for
reconsideration fails to point to any manifest errors of law or fact, or any newly
discovered evidence. Instead, Defendant revisits old arguments or attempts to introduce
new arguments without providing good cause for his failure to raise them prior to entry of
judgment. Defendant’s admission that he failed to present some of the arguments he now
raises and that he did so on the advice of his counsel does not cure his failure to do so.
See Doc. No. 92, at 2-3. The Court therefore concludes that Defendant’s request for
reconsideration of the Court’s May 27, 2014 Memorandum and Order should be denied.
See id.; see also 11 Wright & Miller § 2859 (1973) (updated April 2013) (explaining that
“[u]nder both rules [59 and 60] . . . if [the evidence] was in the possession of the party

-2-

before the judgment was rendered it is not newly discovered and does not entitle the party
to relief”).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Gerald Peters’ “Response to
Memorandum and Order of 5/27/2014” is DENIED. (Doc. No. 92.)

________________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 21st day of July, 2014.

-3-