In re One Main Development, LLC

Summary

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois denies Clayton Jefferson Development, LLC’s motion under Bankruptcy Rule 9023 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend an order denying modification of a protective order. The court concludes that the motion largely rehashes previously presented arguments, advances theories that could have been raised earlier, and fails to establish manifest error or newly discovered evidence. The court also reiterates that CJD lacked derivative standing and had not identified a sufficiently justified basis for broader dissemination of Rule 2004 discovery materials.

Holdings

1. The motion to alter or amend was denied because Clayton Jefferson Development did not establish a manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, or another permissible basis for Rule 59(e) relief.
2. The creditor could not use its motion concerning the later protective-order ruling to circumvent the deadline for challenging the earlier denial of derivative standing or to relitigate that separate ruling.
3. The denial of modification was proper because the creditor failed to identify a specific bankruptcy cause of action justifying further discovery and failed to identify and justify the particular documents, recipients, and purposes for the requested dissemination.
4. The creditor did not establish that its unobjected-to bankruptcy claim constituted a money judgment that supplied a seven-year judgment-enforcement period or otherwise supported the proposed alter-ego theory.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Clayton Jefferson Development established a manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, or another basis for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
2. Whether the creditor could use a Rule 59(e) motion concerning the protective-order ruling to relitigate the earlier denial of derivative standing or present arguments and facts that could have been raised previously.
3. Whether the bankruptcy court's findings concerning the scope of the requested protective-order modification, the lack of an identified bankruptcy cause of action, and the unsupported request to disclose information to the creditor's president constituted manifest error.

Disposition

other