Yoseph Yadessa Kenno v. Colorado Governor's Office of Information Technology, et al.

; ’ 1. Whether the Lower Courts violated Supreme .Court precedents governing pro se pleading by construing my pro se Rule 59(a) motion expressly seeking a new trial, as a mo­ tion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e), based solely on the motion's title.

1. Whether the Tenth Circuit's affirmation of the District Court's failure to apply any discemable Rule 59(a) stand­ ards to my Rule 59(a) motion: (a) deprives other pro se liti­ gants of Rule 59(a)'s intended protections, (b) creates a cir­ cuit split, (c) exacerbates an existing circuit split.

2. Whether deliberately withheld evidence produced af­ ter a non-jury trial, but before final judgement, qualify as newly discovered evidence for the purposes of Rule 59(a) or (e) motions, when the disclosures occur subsequent to the District Court's post-trial decision^) denying the admission of any newly discovered evidence.

3. Whether the District Court imposed unreasonable burdens under Rule 59(e) by faulting me for not moving to reopen the record to admit newly discovered evidence after trial, when the District Court itself had categorically barred the admission of newly discovered evidence.

4. When a governmental entity defendant deliberately conceals the existence of highly probative electronic evi­ dence until after trial, and then refuses to disclose this evi­ dence, at what point does withholding such vital digitized materials infringe upon a litigant's constitutional due pro­ cess rights, and necessitate a new trial in the pursuit ofjus­ tice?

5. Whether the District Court’s one-sided discovery rul­ ings denying my expert meaningful access to Respondents’ electronic records while allowing Respondents’ experts un­ fettered access to mirror images of my personal devices