Opinion

BARBARA JONES, District Judge

By Order dated June 25, 2004, this Court imposed sanctions on Defendant's former counsel, Mr. Hanbin Wang. Mr. Wang now moves for the Court to reconsider its decision or, in the alternative, to reduce the fees and costs Plaintiff's counsel seeks. For the reasons to follow, the Court denies Mr. Wang's motion to reconsider its decision to sanction, but after reviewing the fees and costs application of plaintiff reduces the amount.

DISCUSSION

In his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Wang raises several grounds on which he believes the Court should reconsider its decision. Mr. Wang asserts, inter alia, that he had prepared with Mr. Dai for his deposition, contrary to Mr. Dai's testimony, which Mr. Wang maintains was inaccurate because of the interpreter's misinterpretation of the questions and answers. Mr. Wang also argues that he cooperated with, and even aided, Plaintiff's counsel during the Dai deposition, and that this behavior should factor into the Court's analysis.

Taking these assertions as true, they are nonetheless untimely made. "A motion for reconsideration . . . is appropriate where the court has overlooked `controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion . . . and which, had they been considered, might have reasonably altered the result before the court.'" Greenwald v. ORB Communications Mktg., Inc., 00 Civ. 1939, 2003 WL 660844, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2003). A movant may not, however, "advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court," or "reargue those issues already considered." Gjoni v. Home Depot Inc., 99 Civ. 1849, 2002 WL 91623, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2002) (citations omitted). This strict standard seeks to discourage litigants from making repetitive arguments on issues that already have been considered by the court or from offering new arguments on a motion the court has already decided. Id.;see also Greenwald, 2003 WL 660844, at *1) ("Local Rule 6.3 "should be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court.") (citations and quotation marks omitted).

Mr. Wang's motion for reconsideration does not comply with these rules. Specifically, the facts Mr. Wang now brings to light are not ones that the Court overlooked, but are ones that Mr. Wang failed to raise timely in his opposition to Plaintiff's application.

Mr. Wang argues that he was precluded from raising the issues he now presents because he was not given sufficient notice and, in summary, because he believed that Plaintiff could not move for attorneys' fees and costs by letter rather than by formal motion.

It is beyond dispute that Mr. Wang timely received Plaintiff's letter application requesting imposition of costs. In addition, Chambers contacted Mr. Wang by phone to ensure that he would respond to Plaintiff's application, and the Court followed this up with an Order, dated June 1, directing him to respond in approximately one week or risk having the application decided unopposed. Thus, Mr. Wang was on notice of the gravity of the situation and the penalty he might face by not adequately opposing the application, and was given fair opportunity to respond. Moreover, although he asserts that he did not have the record of the deposition in time for his original opposition brief, he could have made many if not all of his arguments on reconsideration without it. It is also true that the Court's decision to sanction Mr. Wang was based upon a number of independent grounds which he still does not address. Accordingly, Mr. Wang's motion to reconsider is denied.

In the alternative, Mr. Wang asks the Court to reduce the amount of attorneys' fees and costs Plaintiff seeks. In the June 25 Order, the Court imposed sanctions on Mr. Wang in the amount of attorneys' fees and costs Plaintiff incurred for 3 hours of Mr. Dai's deposition on May 21, as well as the costs to be incurred in taking the second day of Mr. Dai's deposition. By letter dated July 1, Plaintiff assessed Mr. Wang $3,296.45 for the May 21 costs and fees and additional estimated costs of $2762.90 for the future deposition. Because the Court finds that the cost for videotaping and the fees for a second lawyer at the May 21 deposition were not necessary expenses the amount of $3,296.45 is reduced to $2,000.

Moreover, the Court declines to order Mr. Wang to pay estimated costs for the second day of the deposition. When that deposition has been completed the Court will review the costs and the efficiency with which the deposition is conducted to determine an appropriate award.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Wang's motion for reconsideration is denied, the sanctions award for the May 21, 2004 is $2,000. The award for the continued deposition will be determined after its completion.

SO ORDERED.