United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division
RONALDO DESIGNER JEWELRY, INC. PLAINTIFF
JAMES B. COX and CATHERINE A. COX d/b/a JC DESIGNS d/b/a WIRE N RINGS and JOHN DOE a/k/a LEROY and JOHN DOES No. 1 through 99 DEFENDANTS
M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc.'s motion for
reconsideration of the Court's July 16 order issuing
requests to the Register of Copyrights, Doc. #358; and motion
to strike the defendants' response to the Court's
July 19 order, Doc. #361.
16, 2019, this Court entered an order granting in part the
defendants' motion for issuance of a request to the
Register of Copyrights. Doc. #356. The order authorized two
questions to the Register: (1) “whether the Copyright
Office would have rejected the application for the Angelina
bracelet if it had known the bracelet was based on the
Reuther bar bracelet” and (2) “whether the
Copyright Office would have rejected the application for the
Power of Prayer bracelet if it had known the bracelet was
based on the Reuther window bracelet.” Id. at
Court based the window bracelet question on its comparison of
the Power of Prayer bracelet and the image in document
#169-2,  which the Court, based on the
defendants' representations, presumed to be a design of
Preston Reuther. Id. at 8-10.
19, 2019, Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc. filed a motion for
reconsideration of the July 16 order on the ground that the
image in document #169-2 was not designed by Reuther. Doc.
#358 at 1-2. The same day, the Court directed the defendants
to respond to the motion for reconsideration and to
“identify which Preston Reuther product
‘previously submitted in pleadings' matches the
description in their supplemental reply, i.e., includes a
‘wire window, vertical wraps, and seven beads
….'” Doc. #359. The defendants responded in
opposition to the motion for reconsideration on July 26,
2019. Doc. #360. Five days later, Ronaldo moved to strike the
defendants' response. Doc. #361. The motion to strike is
fully briefed. Docs. #362, #363.
for Reconsideration Standard
general rule, requests for reconsideration of an
interlocutory order, such as the one at issue here, is
properly treated as a motion for reconsideration under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Helena Labs.
Corp. v. Alpha Sci. Corp., 483 F.Supp.2d 538, 538 n.1
(E.D. Tex. 2007).
Although the source of the court's authority to revise or
amend an order or judgment is different for interlocutory
orders than for final orders or judgments, many of the same
policy considerations apply both to motions for
reconsideration under Rule 54(b) and to motions for
reconsideration under Rule 59(e). Accordingly, district
courts … frequently apply the same standards to the
eTool Dev., Inc. v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp.,
881 F.Supp.2d 745, 748 (E.D. Tex. 2012) (collecting cases).
Fifth Circuit jurisprudence:
A Rule 59(e) motion calls into question the correctness of a
judgment. This Court has held that such a motion is not the
proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or
arguments that could have been offered or raised before the
entry of judgment. Rather, Rule 59(e) serves the narrow
purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.