United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
American Furukawa, Inc. Plaintiff,
Isthihar Hossain and HT Wire & Cable Americas, LLC, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
RECONSIDERATION AND/OR CLARIFICATION 
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN United States District Court Judge.
23, 2016, this Court entered an Order on the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment , granting in part
the Defendants Hossain and HT Wire Cable Americas, LLC's
(“Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment 
and denying Plaintiff American Furukawa, Inc.'s
(“Plaintiff”) Motion for Summary Judgment .
On July 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed this Motion for
Reconsideration. For reasons given below, the Court
DENIES the Plaintiff's Motion.
September 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Complaint  against
former employee, Defendant Hossain. In the Complaint,
Plaintiff alleged eight Counts: (1) violation of the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. §
1030; (2) fraud; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of
fiduciary duty; (5) misappropriation of trade secrets under
Mich. Comp. Laws §445.1902; (6) conversion; (7) tortious
interference; and (8) civil conspiracy.
April 19, 2016, the Defendant and Plaintiff filed cross
Motions for Summary Judgment. The Court partially granted the
Defendants' Motion, dismissing the Plaintiff's
conversion claim, and denied Plaintiff's Motion.
American Furukawa, Inc. v. Isthihar Hossain, HT Wire
& Cable Americas, LLC, No. 14-cv-13633, 2016 WL
3444079 (E.D. Mich. June 23, 2016). The Plaintiff now moves
the Court to reconsider denial of summary judgment on
Plaintiff's CFAA claim, denial of its contract claim, and
dismissal of its conversion claim.
Court cannot grant a motion for reconsideration which merely
presents the same issues the Court already ruled on. LR
7.1(h)(3)(E.D. Mich. July 1, 2013). Additionally, a movant
must demonstrate a palpable defect in the opinion or order
under attack and that correcting the defect will result in a
different disposition of the case. Id.; Indah v.
U.S. S.E.C., 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir. 2011). “A
‘palpable defect' is a defect which is obvious,
clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Hawkins
v. Genesys Health Systems, 704 F.Supp.2d 688, 709 (E.D.
Mich. 2010) (quoting Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines
Ins. Co., 162 F.Supp.2d 714, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2001)). A
motion for reconsideration that merely presents “the
same issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by
reasonable implication” shall be denied. Hence v.
Smith, 49 F.Supp.2d 547, 551 (E.D.Mich.1999)).
Plaintiff first contends that the Court erred in denying
summary judgment on the Plaintiff's CFAA claim.
See Dkt. No. 141 at 1-2 (Pg. ID No. 3570-71).
Plaintiff contends that the Court erred when it declined to
consider evidence attached to the Plaintiff's Response
 to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
See Dkt. No. 138 at 17-18 (Pg. ID No. 3518-19). This
argument is without merit.
summary judgment, a movant bears the initial burden of
demonstrating the absence of any genuine dispute as to a
material fact, and all inferences should be made in favor of
a non-movant. Hardenburg v. Dunham's Athleisure
Corp., 963 F.Supp.2d 693, 699 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (citing
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986);
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) (providing
“a party asserting that a fact cannot be or is
genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to
particular parts of materials in the record[.]”).
Further, a court “need consider only the cited
materials, but it may consider other materials in the
record.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3).
Plaintiff fails to cite any authority requiring the Court to
consider evidence extrinsic to a motion for summary judgment.
Indeed, the Court was obligated only to consider any cited
evidence filed with the Plaintiff's own motion when
determining whether Plaintiff had met its initial burden.
Hardenburg, 963 F.Supp.2d at 699; Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)(3). Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment merely
cites interrogatories. The Court determined such
interrogatories did not constitute “documents detailing
expenses.” American Furukawa, 2016 WL 3444079
Court did not, and was not required to, consider any evidence
attached to Plaintiff's other filings. Absent a
compelling reason to liberally construe Rule 56(c)(3), the
Court finds no palpable defect in ...