Opinion
No. CR 00-1066 LH
January 24, 2001
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the United States Motion for Reconsideration of the Courts Memorandum Opinion Order [sic] Filed December 7, 2000 (Docket No. 45), filed January 4, 2001. The Court, having considered the pleadings submitted by the parties, the arguments of counsel, the testimony of witnesses, and otherwise being fully advised, finds that the motion shall be denied.
The United States moves this Court to reconsider its decision to suppress evidence. Although the Court has the power to revisit its prior decisions, as a rule [the Court] should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice. Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988) (citation omitted).
When faced with a motion for reconsideration, a district court must balance the need for finality against the duty to render just decisions. Davis v. Lehane, 89 F. Supp.2d 142, 147 (D.Mass. 2000).
In order to accommodate these competing interests, a court should grant a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order only when the movant demonstrates (1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a clear error of law in the first order. Id. It is not the purpose of a motion to reconsider to revisit issues already addressed or to advance new arguments that were otherwise available for presentation when the original motion was briefed. Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1992) (denying motion to reconsider order granting summary judgment).
The United States does not base its motion on an intervening change in the law or on the discovery of new evidence not previously available. Nor does the United States demonstrate a clear error of law in the first order in my decision to suppress the evidence. The United States motion merely revisits issues already addressed. Therefore, the motion to reconsider will be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the United States Motion for Reconsideration of the Courts Memorandum Opinion Order [sic] Filed December 7, 2000 (Docket No. 45), filed January 4, 2001, is denied.