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.

This means that the decisions referenced in Rule 54(b) "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) (citing Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F. 2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)); see also Jordan v. Tucker, Albin & Assocs., No. 13-CV-6863 , 2018 WL 4259987, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2018) (An "interlocutory order 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.") (internal quotations omitted). Consequently, "[t]he standard for granting [a reconsideration motion] 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."

l defendant made repeated phone calls to the plaintiff, Teng v. Metro. Retail Recovery Inc. , 851 F.Supp. 61, 67 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) ; signed material documents sent to the plaintiff, Baltazar , 2018 WL 3941943, at *17 ; made a "series of abusive and deceptive phone messages," Williams , 2004 WL 5462235, at 4 ; had "final supervisory authority" over the collection letters, Winslow v. Forster & Garbus, LLP , No. CV 15-2996 (AYS), 2017 WL 6375744, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2017), appeal withdrawn , No. 18-116, 2018 WL 1840195 (2d Cir. Apr. 6, 2018) ; acted in "an abusive, harassing, and deceptive manner contrary to the standards of civilized society, and contrary to the standards employed by others in its industry," Krapf , 525 F.Supp.2d at 326 ; or was the "sole employee responsible for collecting plaintiffs' debt." Jordan v. Tucker, Albin & Assocs., Inc. , No. 13CV6863JMASIL, 2017 WL 2223918, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2017), reconsideration denied sub nom.Jordan v. Tucker, Albin & Assocs. , No. 13-CV-6863-SIL, 2018 WL 4259987 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2018). Here, the uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that Kusic was not "personally involved" in the collection efforts of plaintiffs' debt.