United States District Court, D. New Mexico
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR
C. YARBROUGH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration, filed October 8, 2019. Doc. 27. On October
9, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for
Reconsideration. Doc. 28. The amended motion “corrects
certain typographical errors” in the original
motion.Doc. 28 at 1 n.1. Accordingly, the Court
denies as moot Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration,
Doc. 27, and reviews Plaintiff's Amended Motion, Doc. 28.
Defendants filed a response on October 15, 2019, Doc. 29, and
Plaintiff filed a reply on October 30, 2019, Doc. 31. Having
considered the parties' arguments and all relevant
authority, the Court denies Plaintiff's Amended Motion
August 6, 2019, the Court held a scheduling conference,
during which the parties advised that they were having
trouble reaching an agreement regarding the language of a
confidentiality order. See Doc. 16 (clerk's
minutes). Accordingly, the Court set a briefing schedule,
requiring the parties to file simultaneous briefs regarding
the confidentiality order and attach their proposed version
of the confidentiality order by August 26, 2019. Doc. 19. In
accordance with that order, both Plaintiff and Defendants
filed their briefs on August 26, 2019. Docs. 23, 24. On
September 9, 2019, the Court entered an order adopting
Defendants' proposed confidentiality order, Doc. 25, and
entered that confidentiality order on September 10, 2019,
Doc. 26. Plaintiff now moves the Court for reconsideration of
its Order Granting Confidentiality Order, Doc. 25, and the
ensuing Confidentiality Order, Doc. 26.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize motions for
reconsideration. Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc. v.
Bloomberg, L.P., 312 F.3d 1292, 1296 n.3 (10th Cir.
2002). Instead, a motion for reconsideration “may be
construed in one of two ways: if filed within
days of the district court's entry of judgment, it is
treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule
59(e); if filed more than  days after entry of judgment,
it is treated as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule
the court has discretion to reopen “every order short
of a final decree.” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d
1158, 1167 n.9 (10th Cir. 2005); see also Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) (“[A]ny order or other
decision, however designated that adjudicates fewer than all
the claims or the rights and liability of fewer than all the
parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or
parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a
judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties'
rights and liabilities.”). In reviewing an
interlocutory order, the court is not required to apply the
standards of Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b). Fye v. Oklahoma
Corp. Com'n, 516 F.3d 1217, 1223 n.2 (10th Cir.
2008); Trujillo v. Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Public
Schs., 212 Fed. App'x 760, 765 (10th Cir. 2007).
However, the Tenth Circuit has indicated that a district
court faced with a Rule 54(b) motion to reconsider may use
the standards for reviewing a motion to alter or amend a
judgment under Rule 59(e) to guide its analysis. Ankeney
v. Zavaras, 524 Fed.Appx. 454, 458 (10th Cir. 2013)
(unpublished). Under the Rule 59(e) standards, a court may
grant a motion for reconsideration in three circumstances:
when there is “an intervening change in the controlling
law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Brumark
Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir.
1995). A motion to reconsider is not an opportunity “to
revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that
could have been raised earlier.” United States v.
Christy, 739 F.3d 534, 539 (10th Cir. 2014).
Plaintiff is not asking the Court to reconsider a final
judgment under Rule 59(e) or 60(b), but an interlocutory
order entered while the case is still proceeding toward a
final judgment. The Court sees no reasons to grant this
request because Plaintiff has not shown a change in
controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error that needs to
be corrected. Instead, he simply repeats the arguments he
made in his prior brief, which the Court previously rejected.
prior brief, Plaintiff objected to the itemized list of
proper recipients of confidential information that was
contained in Section 3(B) of Defendants' proposed
confidentiality order. Rather than an itemized list,
Plaintiff requested permission to share confidential
information “as reasonably necessary for the
preparation and trial of this action and any appeals.”
Doc. 24 at 3. The Court adopted Defendants' proposed
language and the Confidentiality Order allows disclosure of
confidential information only to the parties, the Court,
outside counsel of record, any consultant, investigator or
expert, a deponent, a court reporter or a mediator, unless
given permission from the designating party or the Court.
Doc. 26 at 3 (Section 3(B), (C)).
present motion, Plaintiff again argues against the itemized
list and instead argues that disclosure of confidential
information should be allowed “as reasonably necessary
for preparation and trial of this action and any appeals and
may include disclosure to . . . [a]ny individual with
information relevant to any party's claim or individual
likely to have discoverable information.” Doc. 28 at 6.
To support his proposed language, he asserts that the
itemized list requires him to “advertise to Defendants
with whom he is speaking (and with whom he is not speaking)
as he develops his case and follows the trail of evidence,
” and that the itemized list requires him to seek
Defendants' approval before he speaks with a potential
witness. Doc. 28 at 2-4. The Court previously addressed these
concerns, finding that the itemized list of permissible
recipients and the procedure for sharing confidential
information is proper. Doc. 25 at 4-5. The Court previously
acknowledged that “such a procedure strikes an
appropriate balance between a defendant's legitimate
interest in knowing who has access to its confidential
information and a plaintiff's legitimate interest in
using such documents to investigate his case and to determine
which witnesses he will call to testify on his behalf.”
Doc. 25 at 4. Plaintiff offers no new evidence or legal
authority as to why this result should not stand, and the
Court finds no clear error or manifest injustice.
only new argument Plaintiff raises is that the itemized list
is improper because Plaintiff, as a shareholder of the
Defendant company, has a right to review materials
independent from this litigation and outside the
confidentiality order. Doc. 28 at 5. The Court's order,
however, does not apply to documents Plaintiff obtains from
some other avenue in a manner completely independent from
this lawsuit. Thus, the Court does not opine on what
Plaintiff can or cannot obtain through any independent status
Plaintiff may have as a shareholder or whether restrictions
exist that limit shareholders' use and distribution of
information they obtain through their status as shareholders.
Further, Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why he could
not present this argument in previous briefing. See
Christy, 739 F.3d at 539. Because the Court has already
addressed Plaintiffs concerns and because Plaintiff presents
no basis for reconsideration, the Court denies his request to
reconsider its Order Granting Confidentiality Order and the
ensuing Confidentiality Order.
these reasons, the Court denies as moot
Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. 27, and
denies Plaintiffs Amended Motion for
Reconsideration, Doc. 28.
 A side-by-side comparison of the
Motion and Amended Motion shows only two changes between the
motions: 1) On page 5, Section 3(B)(iv) of Plaintiff's
proposed confidentiality order, the language is changed from
“Any witness or individual with information that may
lead to discoverable information, ” to “Any
individual with information relevant to any party's claim
or individual likely to have discoverable information”;
and 2) on page 6, Section 3(B)(iv) of Plaintiff's
alternative proposed confidentiality order, the language is
changed from “Any witness or individual with
information that may lead to discoverable evidence, ”
to “Any ...