ORDER

G. MURRAY SNOW, District Judge.

On April 2, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant Wells Fargo's Motion for Summary Judgment.1 (Doc. 90). Pending before the Court is Defendant Wells Fargo's Motion for Reconsideration of the April 2 Order. (Doc. 92). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff is ordered to respond to the Motion for Reconsideration.

Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the Court "(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court "to rethink what the court had already thought through, rightly or wrongly." Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983)).

Wells Fargo first contends that Plaintiff has not adequately established the damages element of his claims. (Doc. 92 at 6-9). To be sure, Plaintiff has failed to establish a genuine issue for most of his damages theories. He has not, for instance, submitted evidence to support his claim that absent Wells Fargo's misapplication of the escrowed funds he would have been entitled to a tax deduction, or that he was damaged by having to pay interest on the escrowed funds or the Second Loan. Nor has he established a genuine issue that he is entitled to unjust enrichment or improper deficiency damages. The only damages theory which Plaintiff may have preserved is his "loss of personal liquidity" damages theory. (See Doc. 54 at 5).

To succeed on this loss of personal liquidity theory at trial, Plaintiff must establish, among other things, a causal link between Wells Fargo's breach of the Escrow Agreement and Plaintiffs alleged loss of liquidity. Plaintiff must therefore identify admissible evidence that he completed a portion of the agreed-upon improvements.

The only evidence cited by Plaintiff thus far of the completion of improvements is Exhibit "M." (See Doc. 85 at 4). Exhibit M, however, is a summary of evidence; it does not, itself, constitute admissible evidence. (See Doc. 85 at 13). It appears that there may be other evidence in the record regarding the completion of some of the improvements. (See, e.g., Doc. 58, Ex. A). Plaintiff does not cite to such evidence in his Response, however, nor has he demonstrated that such evidence is admissible. The Court, therefore, orders Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration to identify admissible evidence in the record which he will use to establish his completion of improvements at trial.2

The remaining arguments in Wells Fargo's motion are essentially requests that the Court "rethink what [it] has already thought through." Above the Belt, Inc. 99 F.R.D. at 101. Wells Fargo has not identified newly discovered evidence, clear error, manifest injustice, or a change in controlling law with respect to these arguments. See id. Accordingly, the only argument to which Plaintiff need respond is Defendant's damages argument, as detailed above.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Steve Thomas shall have until May 22, 2012, to respond to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 92). Plaintiffs Response should be limited to 10 pages, not including any exhibits which Plaintiff may wish to attach to the Response.