Opinion
Case No.: 4:05CV671.
May 17, 2005
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Reconsider ("the Motion") (doc. 34) the Court's May 4, 2005 Order filed by Plaintiff Municipal Revenue Services, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "MRS") on May 13, 2005. For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be denied.
STANDARD OF REVIEW:
Motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly as federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments. Burger King Corp. v. New England Hood Duct Cleaning Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1022, at *2 (E.D. Pa. 2000). "The purpose of a motion for reconsideration . . . is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence."Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986)). "Accordingly, a judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Id. (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)).
"A motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a means to reargue matters already argued and disposed of or as an attempt to relitigate a point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant." Abu-Jamal v. Horn, No. CIV. A. 99-5089, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ogden v. Keystone Residence, 226 F.Supp.2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002).
DISCUSSION :
In our May 4, 2005 Order, we granted a Motion to Extend Deadline filed by Defendant Xspand, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Xspand") to the extent that we extended briefing deadlines related to Plaintiff's previously filed Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. See Rec. Doc. 27. We directed that Defendant shall have five days from the conclusion of the expedited discovery to file a brief in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and that Plaintiff shall have five days from the receipt of Defendant's submission to file a reply brief if it so desires. We denied Defendant's Motion in all other respects.
In our May 4, 2005 Order we noted that based upon our knowledge of the expedited discovery in the case, the conclusion of the expedited discovery period would likely be measured from the date of the last deposition; however, we explained that if any unclarity exists with respect to the date triggering Defendant's period to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, that both parties shall jointly contact the Court. (See Rec. Doc. 27 at 2).
In its Motion, Plaintiff states that it has no objection to the parties submitting supplemental briefing upon the completion of expedited discovery, but in order to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff, and to properly prepare for discovery, Plaintiff needs to ascertain what positions Defendant is adopting on the various legal and factual issues set forth in Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, before the depositions occur. (Pl.'s Mot. Reconsid. at 1-2). Plaintiff explains that before the Court granted Defendant's request to extend the briefing schedule one day after it was filed, Plaintiff had no opportunity to notify the Court of its position that a request for an extension to a briefing deadline may impede Plaintiff's ability to effectively and efficiently conduct expedited discovery. (Pl.'s Br. Supp. Mot. Reconsid. at 4).
After a careful review of Plaintiff's Motion and accompanying submission, we do not find that Plaintiff has demonstrated any one of the following necessary to alter or amend our May 4, 2005 Order: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the Motion to Extend Deadline; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Café, 176 F.3d at 677(citing North River Ins. Co., 52 F.3d at 1218).
Although Plaintiff asserts that new evidence warrants the Court's reconsideration, in the form of Plaintiff's contention that the Defendant is issuing Right to Know Law requests directly to Plaintiff's customers "in an attempt to procure documents relating to MRS' transactions with taxing entities, which the parties agreed would only be provided to Defendant upon the conclusion of the depositions of the Defendant's representatives," we do not find that this in any way warrants the Court's reconsideration of our May 4, 2005 Order setting deadlines for the briefing schedule of Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (Pl.'s Br. Supp. Mot. Reconsid. at 4).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's May 4, 2005 Order is denied.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's May 4, 2005 Order (doc. 34) is DENIED.