United States District Court, Southern District of New York
July 31, 2003
IN RE: REZULIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL NO. 1348) THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL CASES
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lewis Kaplan, District Judge.
PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 167
(Degge Motion for Reconsideration)
Pretrial Order No. 155, dated June 4, 2003 and entered June 6, 2003, denied the motion of The Degge Group, Ltd. ("Degge") for costs and attorneys' fees incurred in responding to a PEC subpoena. By motion served on July 25, 2003, Degge moves for reconsideration of that decision.
S.D.N.Y. Civ.R. 6.3 requires that a motion for reconsideration or reargument be served within ten days after the docketing of the court's determination of the original motion and must set "forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked." Such motions are confined to raising "matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked." "The fact that [a party] disagrees with the Court's ruling does not justify a motion for reconsideration, which must be limited to matters that were before the Court and overlooked." Faulkner v. National Geographic Soc'y, 220 F. Supp.2d 237, 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). They are not a vehicle for rehashing arguments already made and rejected.
Degge's motion flies in the face of the rule. The motion is untimely by over a month and is not excused by counsel's claim that he was not notified of the entry of Pretrial Order No. 155 by the Clerk.*fn1 Further, there is not even a suggestion that the Court overlooked anything in deciding 1 Degge's motion, let alone a hint of any error of law.*fn2 Thus, the motion was an abuse and a waste of everyone's time. It is denied.
In ordinary circumstances, the Court would be inclined to stop with denial of the motion. But thee circumstances are not entirely ordinary. There are over 800 individual Rezulin cases on the Court's docket. Thus far, they have generated over 1,250 docket entries. The MDL has as a whole has produced many motions and applications affecting individual cases in addition to those are common to all or substantially all matters. The substantial burden thus created, which is an inevitable and accepted part of litigation of this character, should not be increased by baseless motions. Accordingly, the responsible attorney, Leon B. Taranto, Esq., and his client, Degge, each shall show cause, on or before August 22, 2003, why sanctions should not be imposed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(1)(B) and 11(b)(2), on the ground that the motion for reconsideration was not warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.