Opinion
No. 98 Civ. 1691 (MGC).
July 26, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiffs move for reconsideration of my June 14, 2006 order on their motion for class certification. Local Rule 6.3 requires that those who seek reconsideration demonstrate that the court has "overlooked matters or controlling decisions which, had they been considered, might reasonably have altered the result."Donahue v. Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc., 719 F. Supp. 149, 151 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). A motion for reconsideration "is not intended as a vehicle for a party dissatisfied with the Court's ruling to advance new theories that the movant failed to advance in connection with the underlying motion, nor to secure a rehearing on the merits with regard to issues already decided." Montanile v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 216 F. Supp. 2d 341, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Because plaintiffs have not satisfied the standard for reconsideration, the motion is denied. Furthermore, plaintiffs' new and vague request for additional discovery is not a ground for reconsideration.
SO ORDERED.