does not satisfy this “substantial standard.” Peerless Ins. Co. v. Pennsylvania Cyber Charter Sch., 19 F.Supp.3d 635, 651 (W.D. Pa. 2014) (citations omitted)

Such a motion will "only be granted if the moving party demonstrates (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the existence of new evidence that was unavailable when the court issued its order; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact to prevent a manifest injustice." Peerless Ins. Co. v. Pa. Cyber Charter Sch., 19 F. Supp. 3d 635, 651 (W.D. Pa. 2014). "The moving party bears a heavy burden to demonstrate that an order should be reconsidered," and rearguing or re-litigating old matters or expressing disagreement with the earlier ruling are inappropriate bases for such a motion.