Opinion
03-MD-1570 (GBD)(SN)
11-22-2021
In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
ORDER
SARAH NETBURN United States Magistrate Judge
Kreindler & Kreindler's motion for reconsideration of the Court's ruling on the admission of KSAX-101 at ECF No. 7375 is DENIED. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and the threshold for granting them is high. See Iowa Pub. Emp. Ret. Sys. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 973 F.Supp.2d 459, 462 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). Additionally, parties “may not use a motion for reconsideration to raise new arguments for the first time when they were free to raise them during the original briefing.” Luv n' Care, Ltd. v. Regent Baby Prod. Corp., 986 F.Supp.2d 400, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
Kreindler & Kreindler identifies no controlling authority or material fact that the Court overlooked in its decision at ECF No. 7369. Courts in this district have long taken a dim view of parties making technical authenticity challenges to their own productions and those decisions are persuasive here. See Com. Data Servers, Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 262 F.Supp.2d 50, 59 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Faulkner v. Arista Recs. LLC, 797 F.Supp.2d 299, 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); Roc Nation LLC v. HCC Int'l Ins. Co., PLC, 523 F.Supp.3d 539, 553, n.5 (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
Kreindler & Kreindler's new attempt to raise a hearsay objection to KSAX-101 is also without merit. Motions for reconsideration are not the appropriate place to raise arguments that could be raised in the original briefing. The argument is also unfounded as KSAX-101 is not hearsay because, as offered by the Kingdom, it is a party opponent statement. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2).
SO ORDERED.