Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Williams, No. 7:2010cv00087 - Document 134 (E.D. Ky. 2012)

Court Description: 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

Download PDF
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.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.