Opinion
C. A. 21-CV-241-JJM-PAS
09-23-2021
SAMUEL DIAZ, Plaintiff, v. PATRICIA A. COYNE-FAGUE, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 117) of the Court's order (ECF No. 111) permitting redaction of irrelevant material from “OC policy” document and restricting access is denied. “The granting of a motion for reconsideration is ‘an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.'” Bowling v. Hasbro, Inc., C. A. No. 05-229S, 2008 WL 169693, at *1 (D.R.I. Jan. 16, 2008) (quoting Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006)). “Unless the court has misapprehended some material fact or point of law, such a motion is normally not a promising vehicle for revisiting a party's case and rearguing theories previously advanced and rejected.” Palmer, 465 F.3d at 30. To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, a movant “must demonstrate either that newly discovered evidence (not previously available) has come to light or that the rendering court committed a manifest error of law.” Id.; see Silva v. Farrell, C. A. No. 18-650JJM, 2019 WL 2501887, at *1 (D.R.I. Jan. 15, 2019), adopted, C. A. No. 18-650-JJM-PAS, 2019 WL 2500668 (D.R.I. Jan. 30, 2019).
The Court's in camera review confirmed that the redacted portions of the document are not relevant to this case. The Court's order further allows Plaintiff access to the document on request, as staffing and time permit. Further, the Court hereby clarifies that Defendant shall retain the document for summary judgment or trial and must comply with Plaintiff's request for it to be filed under seal to be made part of the Court's record in Plaintiff's sole option. Based on the absence of any need to reconsider the prior determination and in reliance on Defendant's representation that it has complied with the Court's order, the motion (ECF No. 117) is denied.