United States District Court, District of Columbia
RANDOLPH S. KOCH, Plaintiff,
JAY CLAYTON, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
P. Mehta United States District Judge.
30, 2017, Plaintiff Randolph S. Koch moved the court to alter
or amend its May 2, 2017, Memorandum Opinion and accompanying
Order, in which the court entered summary judgment for
Defendant Jay Clayton, in his official capacity as Chairman
of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
See Pl.'s Mot. for Recons., ECF No. 107
[hereinafter Pl.'s Mot.]; Mem. Op., ECF No. 105; Order,
ECF No. 106. Plaintiff asks the court to reverse the
entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant and reinstate
the case because discovery was “unreasonably
curtail[ed]” in prior proceedings before the Merit
Systems Protection Board and this court, and he believes
manifest injustice underlies the litigation as a whole.
See Pl.'s Mot. at 1-2. More specifically,
Plaintiff claims Defendant has thwarted his ability to obtain
discovery by destroying the records he needs to prove his
case, filing “a misleading and malicious motion”
regarding Plaintiff's FOIA activity, and acting
unethically throughout the litigation. See Id. at 1-
2, 6, 8-16. Additionally, Plaintiff avers that this court has
acted unjustly by both setting too short a discovery period
and requiring Plaintiff to adhere to deadlines, given
Plaintiff's disabilities, ongoing bankruptcy status, and
obligations to participate in other litigation. Id.
at 2, 3 & n.1, 5, 9, 16.
district court has discretion to grant a Rule 59(e) motion
when it finds that any one of three circumstances exists: (1)
there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2)
new evidence has become available; or (3) the moving party
has demonstrated a clear error in the court's opinion
that the court must correct to prevent manifest injustice.
Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.
Cir. 1996) (per curiam). The moving party may not rely on a
Rule 59(e) motion to present facts or argument upon which the
court has already ruled or to present for the first time
arguments or theories that could and should have been raised
previously. Habliston v. FINRA Dispute Resolution,
Inc., No. 15-2225, 2017 WL 1906584, at *2 (D.D.C. May 8,
short, Plaintiff has advanced no legal rationale for why the
court's judgment should be altered or amended. Plaintiff
identifies no intervening change in law or new evidence that
was not previously available. Additionally, Plaintiff has
already raised Defendant's purported spoliation of
evidence, which the court rejected, and he cannot use this
motion to reassert that theory. See Habliston, 2017
WL 1906584, at *2; Mem. Op., ECF No. 106, at 27. Any
suggestion that Defendant acted maliciously or unethically is
unsupported by the evidence in the record. Lastly, although
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is obligated to adhere to
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which include limited
periods for discovery and strict deadlines. See Idrogo v.
Foxx, 990 F.Supp.2d 5, 6 (D.D.C. 2013). The court
provided many extensions of time to Plaintiff in light of his
disabilities and other obligations. See Mem. Op.,
ECF No. 106, at 7-8. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not
identified a need to correct clear error, and the court sees
no manifest injustice in its prior ruling.
light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs Motion is denied. This is
a final, appealable Order.
 Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the court automatically substitutes
Jay Clayton for Mary Jo White. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
25(d) (directing automatic substitution of an officer's
 Although Plaintiff labels his motion a
“Motion for Reconsideration, ” the court treats
Plaintiff's filing as a request to alter or amend the
court's judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 54(b)- which governs motions
for reconsideration-only applies when the court has ruled on
some, but not all, the claims before it, while Rule 59(e)
applies when the court has adjudicated all the claims as to
all the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), 59(e);
see also Loumiet v. United States, 65 F.Supp.3d 19,
24 n.2 (D.D.C. 2014) (comparing Rules 54(b) and 59(e)). The
court's May 2, 2017, Order resolved all the claims as to
all the parties, see Order, ECF No. 106, making Rule
54(b) inapplicable. Thus, the court construes Plaintiff's
Motion as seeking relief under Rule 59(e).
 Three of the four exhibits attached to
Plaintiff's Motion are not new evidence, but rather,
evidence that was available to Plaintiff well in advance of
the court's May 2, 2017, ruling. See Errata for
Pl.'s Mot. for Recons., ECF No. 108 [hereinafter
Pl.'s Updated Mot.], Ex. 2, ECF No. 108-2 (“Exhibit
letter to Angela Caesar, ” dated Sept. 29, 2016);
Pl.'s Updated Mot., Ex. 3, ECF No. 107-3 (“Exhibit
Inquiry re: Notaries, ” dated Sept. 27, 2016);
Pl.'s Updated Mot., Ex. 4, ECF No. 107-4 (“Exhibit
Email and Inquiry re Defendant's Discovery Responses,
” dated Oct. 20, 2016); see also Pl.'s
Mot. at 7-9 (describing his efforts to contact the Angela
Caesar, Clerk of Court, and notaries public in the District
of Columbia in September 2016, and a letter sent to opposing
counsel, Fred Haynes, on October 20, 2016). The fourth
exhibit, an e-mail Plaintiff received from a court reporting
and trial services company, Planet Depos LLC, late last month
has no bearing on the court's ruling on Plaintiff's