See, e.g., Buczakowski v. 1199SEIU, No. 18-CV-0812, 2020 WL 2092480, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. May 1, 2020); Kaplan v. City of New York, No. 14-CV-4945, 2018 WL 2084955, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2018); Vicuna v. O.P. Schuman & Sons, Inc., 298 F.Supp.3d 419, 432 (E.D.N.Y. 2017). Motions under Rule 54(b) are subject to the law of the case doctrine, Buczakowski, 2020 WL 2092480, at *2 (citation omitted), which means that the decision “may not usually be changed unless there is ‘an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice.'” Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of the Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 322 F.3d 147, 167 (2d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted); see also Jordan v. Tucker, Albin & Assocs., No. 13-CV-6863, 2018 WL 4259987, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2018). Although these factors are not identically present here, the unusual circumstances under which the initial motion was made as well as a change in circumstances which is described below warrant the Court's exercise of its discretion to consider Plaintiff's renewed request in the interest of justice. The initial letter motion to unseal - a one-page and line letter motion attaching a proposed order to unseal -- was filed when Plaintiff was represented by counsel.