SWC Production, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation v. Wold Energy Partners, LLC., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, 448 P.3d 856

Wold Energy Partners sued SWC Production, Inc. for breach of the Powell Pressure Maintenance Unit Operating Agreement, alleging SWC failed to pay its share of operating costs; SWC counterclaimed.
The district court granted Wold summary judgment and entered final judgment for $123,967.51 plus interest and fees.
After judgment, SWC located two items it called "newly discovered evidence": (1) revenue distribution check stubs found in a different/misfiled company folder; and (2) production data on the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission website submitted by the Unit’s predecessor operator.
SWC filed a W.R.C.P. 60(b)(2) motion to set aside the judgment, asserting the two items would show the predecessor failed to pay SWC as required and that Wold had assumed that liability.
The district court denied relief, concluding neither item qualified as newly discovered evidence because both could have been found with due diligence; SWC appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying SWC’s W.R.C.P. 60(b)(2) motion asserting newly discovered evidence	The check stubs and Commission production data were newly discovered and could not reasonably have been found earlier; the check stubs were misfiled and the online data was not located before trial.	The check stubs were in SWC’s possession before judgment and the production data was a public record available on the Commission’s website; SWC failed to exercise due diligence.	Affirmed. Under the Kavanaugh four‑prong test the dispositive factor was lack of due diligence: the check stubs were discoverable within SWC’s files and public Commission data was available and thus not "newly discovered."

Kavanaugh v. State, 769 P.2d 908 (Wyo. 1989) (adopts four prerequisites for relief based on newly discovered evidence under Rules 59/60).
Keser v. State, 737 P.2d 756 (Wyo. 1987) (source of factors for newly discovered evidence inquiry).
In re Injury to Seevers, 720 P.2d 899 (Wyo. 1986) (evidence in a party’s possession before judgment generally is not newly discovered).
Dudley v. Franklin, 983 P.2d 1223 (Wyo. 1999) (public records available at time of trial are not newly discovered evidence).
Erhart v. Flint Eng’g & Constr., 939 P.2d 718 (Wyo. 1997) (Rule 60’s purpose to relieve parties from unfair or mistakenly entered final judgments).
United States v. Iverson, 818 F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 2016) (agency website material may constitute public records for evidentiary purposes).