Opinion
No. 03 Civ. 9797 (RWS).
March 8, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, plaintiff Bank of China, New York Branch (the "Bank") has moved for reconsideration of the opinion and order of the Court of November 19, 2004. See Bank of China v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 2004 WL 2624673, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2004) (the "Opinion"). The Bank's motion is granted, and upon reconsideration, the Opinion is clarified as set forth below.
Local Civil Rule 6.3 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
A notice of motion for reconsideration or reargument of a court order determining a motion shall be served within ten (10) days after the entry of the court's determination of the original motion, or in the case of a court order resulting in a judgment, within ten (10) days after the entry of the judgment. There shall be served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked. . . .
Local Civ. R. 6.3 (emphasis in original). It is well established that pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, "[reconsideration] is appropriate only where the Court has `overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion.'" Yurman Design Inc. v. Chaindom Enter., Inc., No. 99 Civ. 9307 (JFK), 2000 WL 217480, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2000) (quoting Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 322, 323 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)).
The Bank has moved for reconsideration of the portion of the Opinion addressed to St. Paul's motion to compel production of reports prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers (the "PwC Reports"). The Bank argues that this portion of the Opinion overlooked its objections to the disclosure of the PwC Reports. In particular, the Bank objects to the following passage from the Opinion: "The Bank has not objected to the disclosure of these reports on the basis [of] either relevance or the personal and confidential nature of the information contained therein." Bank of China, 2004 WL 2624673, at *6. The Bank has cited portions of its opposition which it maintains contained such objections and were overlooked.
The Opinion by its terms, limiting the production to information concerning Young, Jian and the defendants in the NBM action, establishes that the objections were not overlooked but were construed, perhaps in error, to seek the limitations set forth in the Opinion. To the extent that the objections were broader and overlooked, the motion to reconsider is granted.
Upon reconsideration, the Opinion is modified to bar the production of any attachments to the PwC Reports containing: (1) Suspicious Activity Reports ("SARs") filed with the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC") and/or (2) correspondence with OCC concerning such SARs.
Finally, the defendants have pointed out a typographical error that appears at the bottom page 13 of the hardcopy version of the Opinion signed by the Court. Id. To correct this error, the phrase "St. Paul's discovery requests relating to the PWC Reports are limited" is amended to read "St. Paul's discovery requests relating to the PWC Reports are not limited".
Based on the foregoing, the Bank's motion for reconsideration is granted and the order to produce the PwC Reports is modified as provided above.
It is so ordered.