Abbott v. U.S.

Full title: MARIE N. ABBOTT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Jun 22, 2001

3:96-CV-510 (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 22, 2001)

Opinion

3:96-CV-510.

June 22, 2001.

THOMAS F. O'CONNOR, ESQ., O'CONNOR, GACIOCH POPE, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Binghamton, New York.

NEIL D. KIMMELFIELD, ESQ., BALL JANIK LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Portland, Oregon.

WILLIAM H. PEASE, ESQ., Assistant U.S. Attorney, HON. DANIEL J. FRENCH, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York Attorney for Defendant, Syracuse, New York.

ALAN SHAPIRO, ESQ., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Tax Division For Defendant, Washington, DC.

DECISION and ORDER

DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge.

Presently before the court is the Government's motion for partial reconsideration of the April 30, 2001, Decision and Order denying the Government's request for attorneys fees and costs sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, 1920, filed on May 4, 2001. Plaintiffs submitted a letter in opposition to the motion for partial reconsideration and in support of a renewed request for expert discovery costs pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4)(C), which was also denied in the April 30, 2001, Decision and Order. The Government replied on May 22, 2001. Plaintiffs filed a letter response dated May 21, 2001. The Government in turn filed a letter response dated May 22, 2001. The motions was taken on submission of the papers without oral argument.

Local Rule 7.l(g) provides that motions for reconsideration may be filed within 10 days of the filing of the order for which reconsideration is requested. However, reconsideration is warranted only where controlling law has changed, new evidence is available, and/or clear error must be corrected or manifest injustice prevented. Bartz v. Agway, Inc., 849 F. Supp. 166, 167 (N.D.N.Y. 1994) (citations omitted). Here there is no change of controlling law, no new evidence, no clear error that must be corrected, and no manifest injustice that must be prevented.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that

1. The Government's motion for partial reconsideration is DENIED with prejudice; and

2. Plaintiffs' renewed request for additional reimbursement pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4)(C) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.