United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
IN RE SANDRIDGE ENERGY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
CHARLES B. GOODWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider
(Doc. No. 428) and supporting papers (Doc. Nos. 429, 430,
431), asking that the Court revisit its Order (Doc. No. 426)
granting Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 415) and
denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement (Doc. No. 422).
Defendants have responded (Doc. No. 436), and the Motion is
now at issue. For the reasons outlined below, Plaintiffs'
Motion is DENIED.
outlined in the Court's previous Order, in March 2019
Plaintiffs submitted an expert report to Defendants authored
by Bjorn L. Steinholt (the “March Report” (Doc.
No. 416-1)). Defendants then submitted a report from their
expert Steven Grenadier, PhD (the “Grenadier
Report” (Doc. No. 416-2)), which criticized Mr.
Steinholt's March Report in various ways. Finally,
Plaintiffs submitted a “Rebuttal Expert Report”
by Mr. Steinholt (the “April Report” (Doc. No.
moved to strike certain portions of the April Report, arguing
that Mr. Steinholt offered two new opinions therein that were
not proper rebuttal.
First, Mr. Steinholt opined for the first time that
Plaintiffs could recover damages resulting from a second
stock drop on August 5, 2011. Second, he introduced a new
variable methodology for calculating alleged inflation during
the putative class period, abandoning the constant 60 cents
per share inflation theory in his initial report in favor of
a new calculation in which the amount of alleged price
inflation varies on every day of the putative class period.
Defs.' Mot. to Strike Br. (Doc. No. 416) at
see Apr. R. ¶¶ 65-83 & Ex. A.
Court's Order found that these opinions were not proper
rebuttal evidence. See Order at 3-4. The Order
further found that supplementation should not be permitted
and ordered Paragraphs 65 to 83 and Exhibit A of the April
Report stricken. See Id. at 4-7.
to reconsider, though “not formally recognized by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . are routinely
entertained, in one form or another, by federal
courts.” Christ Ctr. of Divine Philosophy, Inc. v.
Elam, No. CIV-16-65-D, 2018 WL 1770491, at *1 (W.D.
Okla. Apr. 12, 2018), aff'd, 763 Fed.Appx. 740
(10th Cir. 2019) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)). Reconsideration
may be predicated on one or more of three grounds: “(1)
an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new
evidence previously unavailable, ” or “(3) the
need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204
F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Thus, a motion to
reconsider “is appropriate where the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the
controlling law.” Id. “It is not
appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance
arguments that could have been raised in prior
Motion asserts that the Court misapprehended the facts as to
the first disputed portion of the April Report and misapplied
the controlling law as to the second portion. See
Pls.' Mot. to Reconsider Br. (Doc. No. 429) at 4-13.
Paragraphs 65 to 69 and Exhibit A
Plaintiffs argue that in striking the disputed material from
the April Report, the Court failed to appreciate that
Paragraphs 65 to 69 and Exhibit A (the “New
Calculation” portion) focus upon the new
variable-inflation-rate damages calculation, while the
remainder (the “New Damages” portion) focuses
upon the recovery of damages from the August 5, 2011
stock-price drop. Pls.' Mot. to Reconsider ...