Opinion
No. 02 Civ. 6887 (JSR)(KNF).
September 30, 2005
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
On July 14, 2005, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order that disposed of challenges made by each party to a witness(s) that the adversary party had indicated it would use to present testimony in the form of an opinion at the trial of this action.See Fed.R.Evid. 702. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent the Court a letter asking that it "reconsider and/or clarify the [July 14, 2005] Order."
The defendant submitted a memorandum in opposition to the plaintiff's application seeking reconsideration and/or clarification of the Court's order. The defendant contends that the plaintiff's application should not be entertained by the Court, in part, because the plaintiff failed to comply with Local Civil Rule 6.3 of this court, which governs motions for reconsideration or reargument. Furthermore, the defendant maintains that, in the plaintiff's submission to the Court, he failed to identify any facts or controlling law that were overlooked by the Court and, therefore, reconsideration of the Court's July 14, 2005 order is not warranted.
Local Civil Rule 6.3 of this court provides, in pertinent part, that a notice of motion for reconsideration or reargument "shall be served with . . . a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked." "Thus, to be entitled to reargument and reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion." Hamilton v. Garlock, Inc., 115 F. Supp. 2d 437, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). A motion for reconsideration "is not a motion to reargue those issues already considered when a party does not like the way the original motion was resolved." In re Initial Public Offering Antitrust Litigation, No. 01 Civ. 2014, 2004 WL 789770, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2004) (quoting Yurman Design Inc. v. Chaindom Enterprises, Inc., No. 99 Civ. 9307, 2003 WL 22047849, at *1 [S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2003]). The decision to grant or deny a motion is within the sound discretion of the court. Id.
In the instant case, the plaintiff did not submit a notice of motion or a memorandum of law to the Court, as he was required to do by Local Civil Rule 6.3, when requesting that the Court reconsider one of its orders. Instead, the plaintiff sent a letter to the Court accompanied by the objections to the July 14, 2005 order that he submitted to the assigned district judge pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. In his letter to the Court requesting reconsideration of the July 14, 2005 order, the plaintiff urged the Court to review and consider, in resolving his application for reconsideration, the Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 submission he made to the assigned district judge. That document, among other things, contains an undated affidavit signed by Gary Robinson, a person from whom the plaintiff wishes to elicit opinion testimony at the trial of this action. Local Civil Rule 6.3 of this court, by its express language, bars a party who has made an application for reconsideration from submitting an affidavit to the court for its consideration in connection with that application "unless directed by the court" to do so. The Court did not direct the plaintiff to submit an affidavit to it in connection with his request for reconsideration.
Inasmuch as the plaintiff has failed to comply with three provisions of Local Civil Rule 6.3 of this court, which governs motions for reconsideration or reargument, the plaintiff's application for reconsideration of the Court's July 14, 2005 order is denied.
SO ORDERED.