Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:08 -cv- 01624- WJM -MJW Document 102 Filed 02/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 12 <br />(a) activities on ULMP lands that are necessary to complete the EIS; <br />(b) activities on ULMP lands that are required to comply with orders from <br />government regulatory agencies; and <br />(c) certain reclamation activities on ULMP lands. <br />In response, Plaintiffs argue that the Motion should be denied because Defendants <br />failed to meaningfully confer with Plaintiffs prior to filing the Motion, and because none <br />of the relief sought is warranted. <br />B. Legal Standard <br />"A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment should be granted only to <br />correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence." Phelps v. <br />Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks omitted); see also <br />Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) ( "Grounds <br />warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling <br />law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or <br />prevent manifest injustice. "). <br />C. Discussion <br />1. Meet - and - confer requirement <br />Plaintiffs argue that the Motion should be denied because Defendants failed to <br />meaningfully meet and confer prior to filing the Motion. The Court agrees that <br />Defendants' counsel's last minute efforts to meet and confer on the day of the deadline <br />to file a timely Rule 59(e) motion were inadequate. However, under the unique <br />circumstances present here, in combination — namely, (1) counsel for Defendants did <br />3 <br />