Advanced Analytics, Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.

Background

Advanced Analytics, Inc. moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(1), (3), and (6) for reconsideration of the November 5, 2021 judgment and related orders. The earlier judgment had awarded Advanced Analytics nominal damages of $1 on a limited aspect of its breach-of-contract claim involving the parties’ nondisclosure agreement. It otherwise directed judgment in favor of the defendants.

Advanced Analytics also moved under Federal Rule of Evidence 201 for judicial notice of what it described as undisputed facts and eleven exhibits, including correspondence and filings related to this action and another action filed by Advanced Analytics in the district.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court explained that Rule 59(e) permits a party to seek alteration or amendment of a judgment, but the remedy is limited to circumstances such as clear error, manifest injustice, or genuinely new evidence. It is not a means to relitigate decided issues, present new theories, or obtain another hearing on the merits. The court also explained that Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, excusable neglect, fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct, or another reason justifying relief. Rule 60(b) likewise requires exceptional circumstances and cannot substitute for a timely appeal.

The court found that Advanced Analytics’s motion principally attempted to relitigate issues addressed in earlier orders, including matters considered in connection with prior summary-judgment proceedings. Its allegations of conspiracy and collusion between its former counsel and the defendants had also been raised for several years. The court rejected those arguments because reconsideration could not be used to relitigate the case or circumvent the appellate process.

Advanced Analytics separately argued that the court’s decision to award only $1 in damages deprived it of the opportunity to gather evidence supporting three possible measures of damages. The court found that Advanced Analytics had an opportunity to gather evidence during discovery and had submitted expert damages testimony during the earlier summary-judgment proceedings. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish damages arising from the limited breach in question. Because the existence of additional damages was uncertain or speculative, the court held that an award of nominal damages rather than a trial on those damages was appropriate.

The court considered Advanced Analytics’s remaining arguments and concluded that they did not justify relief. It therefore denied the motion for reconsideration.

Motion for Judicial Notice

Judicial notice allows a court to accept certain facts without requiring ordinary proof when the facts are generally known or can be accurately determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. The court cautioned that documents from other litigation generally may be noticed only to establish that the litigation and related filings occurred, not to establish the truth of the facts asserted in those documents.

The court found that much of Advanced Analytics’s motion repeated disputes already raised in the reconsideration motion. To the extent the motion was intended to support the reconsideration motion, the court treated it as an unauthorized additional filing. To the extent it asked the court to accept the truth of facts stated in Advanced Analytics’s own correspondence and memoranda, the court held that the request fell outside Rule 201. The court also warned that further attempts to resubmit documents previously stricken for use on the merits could lead to sanctions.

The court granted the motion for judicial notice, on consent, only to the limited extent that it acknowledged the existence of documents previously filed or submitted in this case and in Advanced Analytics’s 2020 action. It otherwise denied the motion.

Other Requests and Disposition

The court considered the defendants’ request for sanctions and declined to impose them. It also declined to order an additional inquiry into whether counsel had substantively participated in preparing portions of Advanced Analytics’s filings.

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Advanced Analytics’s motion for reconsideration and denied its motion for judicial notice except to the limited extent stated above. The order resolved docket entries 467, 479, and 484.