Manbro Energy Corporation v. Chatterjee Advisors, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-03773
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Manbro Energy v. Chatterjee Advisors, Judge Schofield denied reconsideration except for new grounds excluding two defense exhibits.
The Defendants’ ability to use specified exhibits and seek changes to the preliminary jury charge was affected. DX-59 and DX-60 remained excluded, although the court changed the grounds for their exclusion.
What happened
In Manbro Energy Corporation v. Chatterjee Advisors, LLC, the Defendants asked the court to reconsider rulings excluding several defense exhibits and to add language to the preliminary jury instructions before trial. The court had excluded or limited evidence about events after the final distribution, other investors’ responses, and Manbro’s returns on other investments.
The court denied reconsideration of the exhibits concerning events after the final distribution, the exhibits concerning Manbro’s non-Haldia investments, and the requested changes to the preliminary jury instructions. It granted reconsideration as to DX-59 and DX-60, but still excluded those exhibits because they were irrelevant to whether the Defendants acted in good faith when buying out Manbro’s interest in the Fund.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ruled that the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration was denied except as to DX-59 and DX-60, which were excluded on new grounds. The court said that proposals about the final jury instructions could still be made and directed the Defendants to raise any additional issues in post-trial motions.
The detailed version
- Manbro Energy Corporation v. Chatterjee Advisors, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-03773
- Lorna Schofield
- July 6, 2023
Background
The parties discussed revisions to the preliminary jury charge at the final pretrial conference. The court later issued an order excluding or limiting certain defense exhibits. The Defendants then moved for reconsideration shortly before the scheduled trial. They challenged the exclusion of several exhibits and requested additional language concerning the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim in the preliminary jury charge.
A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier ruling. The court explained that such relief is available only for an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent serious unfairness. The court also stated that reconsideration is not a way to reargue issues, present new theories, or raise arguments that could have been made earlier.
Rulings on Exhibits
The court denied reconsideration of DX-77, DX-90, DX-99, DX-101, and DX-102. Those exhibits had been excluded because they were dated after the Final Distribution and therefore did not show what the Defendants knew or believed when the Final Distribution occurred. The court also rejected the Defendants’ argument about when the breach-of-contract claim accrued, explaining that the issue for the case was whether the Defendants acted in good faith when they decided to buy out Manbro’s interest in the Fund.
The court granted reconsideration as to DX-59 and DX-60, but excluded those exhibits on new grounds. The court said its earlier reason for excluding them was mistaken because the exhibits concerned other WPPE investors’ voluntary abandonments in 2015 and 2016, before the Final Distribution. The court nevertheless found the exhibits irrelevant because they did not bear on the Defendants’ good faith in buying out Manbro.
The court denied reconsideration concerning DX-15, DX-16, and DX-24, as well as the requested redactions to DX-17, DX-18, and DX-29. Those documents involved Manbro’s returns on non-Haldia investments, and the court held that the Defendants could and should have raised their arguments earlier.
Preliminary Jury Charge and Disposition
The court denied reconsideration of the requested changes to the preliminary jury charge because the Defendants could and should have raised those arguments at the final pretrial conference. The court specified that this ruling was without prejudice to proposals concerning the final charge.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield concluded that the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration was denied except as to DX-59 and DX-60, which were excluded on new grounds. The court stated that any additional issues, apart from those already contemplated and scheduled, should be raised in post-trial motions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.