Opinion
Case No. 03-74474.
December 22, 2004
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [24]
This matter came before the Court on Defendant's motion for reconsideration of this Court's Opinion and Order dated December 9, 2004. In that order, this Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the part of Plaintiff's breach of contract claim contained in the Complaint's ¶ 48.b: "Misappropriating LawMode's content by converting some or all of it to Defendant's own use (violating ¶ 2(c) of amended Agreement dated 04 May 1997) as the parties' Agreement states that LawMode as `Developer owns all content'." Defendant's motion had argued that the claim was preempted by the Copyright Act. This Court rejected that argument and held that the claim was not preempted. Defendant's now protest that "[t]he opinion did not, however, specify, any contractual promise that a factfinder might consider had been breached by the conduct alleged (namely LexisNexis's creation and distribution of the LexisNexis works)." While LexisNexis admits that the contract assigns ownership of the "content" to LawMode, it argues that it "contains no relevant promises whatever by LexisNexis respecting post-term conduct. . . ."
Pursuant to Rule 7.1(g) of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan, a motion for reconsideration may be filed within ten days after the order to which it objects is issued. It should be granted if the movant demonstrates that the Court and the parties have been misled by a palpable defect and that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction of such palpable defect. On a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must show (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) an Intervening change in controlling law. Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Arctic Express, Inc., 288 F. Supp. 2d 895, 900 (S.D. Ohio 2003). A party is not permitted to raise new legal arguments on a motion for reconsideration that could have been raised earlier. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998). See also Wardle v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, No. 01-5154, 2002 WL 31007996, *6 (6th Cir. Sept. 5, 2002); Walker v. Conseco Serv., LLC, 252 F. Supp. 2d 524, 527-28 (N.D. Ohio 2003).
Defendant did not raise the legal theory presented here in its original motion as grounds for dismissing ¶ 48.b of the Complaint. Therefore, being fully advised in the premises, having read the pleadings, the Court hereby orders as follows:
Defendant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.