various objectives. While the parties dispute whether Olympus achieved these objectives, it is undisputed that AHP failed to give Olympus the 6-month cure period required by the Distribution Agreement. (Doc. No. 107-9 at 8). Thus, AHP was not entitled to terminate the agreement for Olympus’s alleged failure to meet expectations. AHP has not asserted that any of Olympus’s other alleged breaches were material. Many of AHP’s claims, including Olympus’s alleged failure to meet performance objectives, appear to relate to the term of the contract. Olympus did not address these claims in its motion. Thus, AHP’s claims that Olympus violated the Distribution Agreement prior to November 24, 2008 survive. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (<HOLDING>). AHP’s confidentiality and non-compete
holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion for reconsideration that relied on materials available to the movant at the time of the original motion and where movant did not give any explanation as to why she did not rely on those materials in the first instance holding that the movant has the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion holding that motion for reconsideration may only be granted if the movant demonstrates controlling law or factual matters put before the court on the underlying motion that the movant believes the court overlooked and that might reasonably be expected to alter the courts decision holding that in a redistricting case the legislature has the initial responsibility to act but in the event the legislature fails to act the responsibility shifts to the state judiciary holding that a party does not preserve an argument for appellate review by merely informing the district court in the statement of facts in its opening brief of the factual basis for the claim