Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Sandridge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

July 17, 2019

IN RE SANDRIDGE ENERGY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

          ORDER

          CHARLES B. GOODWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Now 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.

         I. Background

         As 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. 416-3)).

         Defendants 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 6;[1] see Apr. R. ¶¶ 65-83 & Ex. A.

         The 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.

         II. Applicable Standard

         Motions 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 briefing.” Id.

         III. Discussion

         Plaintiffs' 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.

         A. Paragraphs 65 to 69 and Exhibit A

         First, 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.