Opinion
07 Civ. 11061 (SAS) (KNF).
January 8, 2009
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
On November 25, 2008, a settlement conference was held at which the parties were instructed to file, on or before December 11, 2008, a joint letter regarding any outstanding discovery disputes. On December 11, 2008, the defendant attempted to file a letter with the Clerk of Court; however, this document was rejected because the Office of the Clerk of Court does not accept letters for filing, and the defendant was informed that letters could be sent directly to a judge.
The defendant submitted its letter, dated December 11, 2008, to the chambers of the undersigned. In its letter, the defendant informed the Court that the plaintiff failed to attend a "meet and confer" conference scheduled by the parties, at which a joint submission by the parties regarding discovery disputes would have been discussed. As a result, in its letter, the defendant detailed the material it sought via discovery that had not been produced by the plaintiff and "disputed interrogatories" requiring answers from the plaintiff, and requested that the Court compel the plaintiff to produce relevant discovery material and provide answers for the noted interrogatories. The plaintiff neither responded to the defendant's letter, nor submitted a writing of his own regarding outstanding discovery disputes.
Based on the defendant's December 11, 2008 letter, on December 19, 2008, the Court ordered the plaintiff to answer the disputed interrogatories and to produce all documents sought through the defendant's various requests for documents, as outlined in the defendant's December 11, 2008 letter. On December 29, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the December 19, 2008 order. In his motion papers, the plaintiff argues that, because the defendant's December 11, 2008 letter was not filed with the Clerk of Court, it was not necessary for him to file a response to the defendant's application that the Court compel him to comply with the defendant's discovery demands. The plaintiff maintains that, "[a] clear error was made by this Court as it appears it was unaware of the rejection of the motion," and the Court must vacate its December 19, 2008 order. The defendant has opposed the plaintiff's request, that the Court reconsider the defendant's application and vacate the December 19, 2008 order.
Local Civil Rule 6.3 of this court authorizes a party to apply to the court for reconsideration of an order that resolved a motion. However, the rule is to be applied strictly and construed narrowly, in order to "`avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the [c]ourt.'" Davidson v. Scully, 172 F. Supp. 2d 458, 462 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Dellefave v. Access Temps., Inc., No. 99 Civ. 6098, 2001 WL 286771, at *1 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2001]). A motion for reconsideration is not a means by which a party may "`reargue those issues already considered when a party does not like the way the original motion was resolved.'" Finkelstein v. Mardkha, 518 F. Supp. 2d 609, 611 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting In re Houbigant, Inc., 914 F. Supp. 997, 1001 [S.D.N.Y. 1996]). Nor is such a motion a vehicle through which a party may "`advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court.'" Id. (quoting Hamilton v. Garlock, Inc., 115 F. Supp. 2d 437, 438-39 [S.D.N.Y. 2000]).
"The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court."Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Having considered the parties' respective written submissions, and mindful that the plaintiff failed to take advantage of the opportunity to set before the Court, in a joint writing with the defendant, his position on the parties' discovery disputes,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the plaintiff's motion is denied. The arguments advanced by the plaintiff, before the Court now, do not demonstrate that key facts or controlling law put before it previously, in ruling on the defendant's application for an order compelling the plaintiff to respond to the specified document requests and disputed interrogatories, were overlooked by the Court.
SO ORDERED.