United States v. Sullivan

3 Citing cases

  1. United States v. ManTech Int'l Corp.

    Civil Action 15-2105 (ABJ) (D.D.C. Sep. 27, 2024)

    Youssef v. Holder, 62 F.Supp.3d 96, 98 (D.D.C. 2014) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Sullivan, Crim. Action No. 21-78 (EGS), 2022 WL 3027007, at *2 (D.D.C. Aug. 1, 2022). The party moving for reconsideration “carries the burden of proving that some harm would accompany a denial of the motion.

  2. Montgomery v. Dist. of Columbia

    Civil Action 18-1928 (JDB) (D.D.C. Jul. 21, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    (“The ‘as justice requires' standard is hardly a free pass ....”). When deciding whether justice requires granting a motion for reconsideration, a court considers whether it “‘has patently misunderstood a party,' ‘has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties,' ‘has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension,'” or whether there has been “a controlling or significant change in the law or facts . . . since the submission of the issue to the Court.” Cobell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 266, 272 (D.D.C. 2004) (citation omitted); accord United States v. Sutton, Crim. No. 21-0598 (PLF), 2021 WL 5999407, at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 20, 2021). “[A]rguments that could have been, but were not, raised previously and arguments that the court has already rejected are not appropriately raised in a motion for reconsideration.” United States v. Sullivan, Crim. A. No. 21-78 (EGS), 2022 WL 3027007, at *2 (D.D.C. Aug. 1, 2022) (quoting United States v. Booker, 613 F.Supp.2d 32, 34 (D.D.C. 2009)); accord Terrell v. Mr. Cooper Grp., Inc., Civ. A. No. 20-0496 (CKK), 2021 WL 2778542, at *3 (D.D.C. July 2, 2021) (“A Rule 54(b) motion ‘cannot be used to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled or to present theories or arguments that could have been advanced earlier.'” (citation omitted)). “In order to promote finality, predictability and economy of judicial resources, ‘as a rule a court should be loathe to revisit its own prior decisions in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice

  3. Doe #1 v. Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps.

    Civil Action 20-1558 (JDB) (D.D.C. Sep. 13, 2022)   Cited 5 times

    When deciding whether justice requires granting a motion for reconsideration, a court considers whether it “‘has patently misunderstood a party,' ‘has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties,' ‘has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension,'” and whether there has been “a controlling or significant change in the law or facts . . . since the submission of the issue to the Court.” Cobell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 266, 272 (D.D.C. 2004) (citation omitted); accord United States v. Sutton, Crim. No. 21-0598 (PLF), 2021 WL 5999407, at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 20, 2021). “[A]rguments that could have been, but were not, raised previously and arguments that the court has already rejected are not appropriately raised in a motion for reconsideration.” United States v. Sullivan, Crim. A. No. 21-78 (EGS), 2022 WL 3027007, at *2 (D.D.C. Aug. 1, 2022) (quoting United States v. Booker, 613 F.Supp.2d 32, 34 (D.D.C. 2009)); accord Terrell v. Mr. Cooper Grp., Inc., Civ. A. No. 20-0496 (CKK), 2021 WL 2778542, at *3 (D.D.C. July 2, 2021) (“A Rule 54(b) motion ‘cannot be used to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled or to present theories or arguments that could have been advanced earlier.'” (citation omitted)). “In order to promote finality, predictability and economy of judicial resources, ‘as a rule a court should be loathe to revisit its own prior decisions in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such