The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sweet, District Judge.
Defendants Avesta Technologies, Inc. ("Avesta") and David Zager
("Zager") (collectively, the "Defendants") have moved for
reconsideration, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, of this
Court's summary judgment opinion of March 1, 2000 (hereinafter,
"Smarts I"), insofar as it dismissed several of the Defendants'
counterclaims. The Defendants have also moved pursuant to Rule
6.3 to strike from the record the Declaration of John Stellabotte
dated March 31, 2000 (the "Stellabotte Declaration") and attached
exhibits. These motions are opposed by plaintiffs System
Management Arts Incorporated ("Smarts"). For the reasons set
forth below, the motion to strike is granted and the motion for
reconsideration is denied.
Smarts is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware.
Avesta is a corporation whose principal place of business is in
the State of New York.
Zager serves as Avesta's Chief Technology Officer and resides
within the State of New York.
Facts and Prior Proceedings
The facts and prior proceedings were set forth in the March 1
Opinion, familiarity with which is assumed. The motion for
reconsideration was filed on March 20, 2000 and deemed fully
submitted on April 12, 2000. The motion to strike was filed on
April 7, 2000 and deemed fully submitted on May 3, 2000.
I. The Motion To Strike The Stellabotte Declaration
A motion for reconsideration is not the proper avenue for the
submission of new material. See Local Rule 6.3; First Amer. Corp.
v. Price Waterhouse LLP, No. M8-85, 1999 WL 148460 (S.D.N.Y.
March 18, 1999). Such material should be stricken and
disregarded. See Quartararo v. Catterson, 73 F. Supp.2d 270, 273
(E.D.N.Y. 1999). To the extent the Stellabotte Declaration and
attached exhibits contain material that is already part of the
record, it is unnecessary to resort to these new documents in
deciding the motion for reconsideration.*fn1 Therefore, the
Stellabotte Declaration and attached exhibits are hereby
II. Legal Standards For A Motion For Reconsideration
Local Rule 6.3 provides in pertinent part: "There shall be
served with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth
concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel
believes the court has overlooked." Thus, to be entitled to
reargument and reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate that
the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters
that were put before it on the underlying motion. See Ameritrust
Co. Nat'l Ass'n v. Dew, ...