Opinion
09 Civ. 7589 (LAK) (KNF).
May 14, 2010
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
By letter motion, the plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its April 13, 2010 order, directing it to produce,inter alia, "any electronic documents created prior to October 1, 2008, that are responsive to the defendants' First Set of Requests for the Production of Documents and Things." See Docket Entry No. 59. The plaintiff seeks reconsideration on the ground that compliance with the Court's order would be unduly burdensome and expensive.
The Court has considered the plaintiff's April 15, 2010 letter, as amended and supplemented by its April 28, 2010 letter, to which an affidavit from its senior vice president of technology is attached.
The Court's April 13, 2010 order granted, in large measure, the defendants' April 2, 2010 motion to compel, to which the plaintiff did not respond. The Court provided the plaintiff ample time — eleven days — to respond to the defendants' motion to compel. See Local Civil Rule 6.1, Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York (providing parties seven days to file oppositions to discovery motions). During that eleven-day span, the plaintiff managed to submit, to the Court, four letters; however, none addressed the defendants' motion to compel. Under these circumstances, and given the plaintiff's awareness of its burden, in the face of a motion to compel electronic discovery, to show "the information [requested] is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost," see Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(B), the Court acted prudently in issuing its order.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3 of this court, a party moving for reconsideration of a court order must provide "a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked." "[A] motion for reconsideration cannot assert new arguments or claims which were not before the court on the original motion."In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, 229 F.R.D. 57, 60 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
As the plaintiff concedes, its objections to the defendants' document requests — in particular, the details concerning the burden it faces in producing e-mail messages stored on backup tapes — were "[u]nbeknownst to the Court." A court cannot overlook that which a party has failed to present to it. Thus, the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, which is based on information not presented previously to the Court, is improper and hereby denied.
SO ORDERED: