By notice of motion dated August 20, 2003 (Docket Item 145) plaintiff
moves for reconsideration of my Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
August 13, 2003 which denied eighteen (18) identical motions made by
plaintiff seeking discovery sanctions in the aggregate amount of $18
million. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
To the extent that the motion is made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)
and 60(b), plaintiffs' motion is procedurally defective. Rules 59(e) and
60(b) address motions seeking to amend judgments and relief from
judgments, respectively. My August 13, 2003 Memorandum Opinion and Order
is not a judgment, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(a), and thus is not a
proper subject of a motion made pursuant to Rule 59(e) or 60(b).
To the extent that the motion can be construed as a motion for
reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, the motion also fails.
Motions for reconsideration are appropriate only in limited
" [T]o be entitled to reargument under Local [Civil Rule 6.3], [a
party] must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions
or factual matters that were put before the Court on the underlying
motion." American Alliance Ins. Co. v. Eagle Ins. Co.,
163 F.R.D. 211, 213 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), rev'd on other grounds,
92 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 1996), citing Ameritrust Co., N.A. v. Dew,
151 F.R.D. 237, 238 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); Fulani v. Brady,
149 F.R.D. 501, 503 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd sub nom., Fulani v.
Bentsen, 35 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1994); East Coast Novelty Co. v.
City of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); B.N.E.
Swedbank, S.A. v. Banker, 791 F. Supp. 1002, 1008 (S.D.N.Y. 1992);
Novak v. National Broad. Co., 760 F. Supp. 47, 48
(S.D.N.Y. 1991); Ashley Meadows Farm. Inc. v. American Horse Shows
Ass'n, 624 F. Supp. 856, 858 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). Thus, "a
party in its motion for reargument `may not advance new facts,
issues or arguments not previously presented to the court.'" In re
Integrated Resources Real Estate Limited Partnerships Sec. Litig.,
850 F. Supp. 1105, 1151 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), quoting Litton Indus.,
Inc. v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb, Inc., No. 86 Civ. 6447 (JMC), 1989
WL 162315 at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 1989), rev'd on other
grounds, 967 F.2d 742 (2d Cir. 1992). Accord Caribbean Trading
& Fidelity Corp. v. Nigerian Nat'l Petroleum Corp.,
948 F.2d 111, 115 (2d Cir. 1991). See also Woodard v. Hardenfelder,
845 F. Supp. 960, 966 (E.D.N.Y. 1994). Motions for reargument should not be
used to permit a party "to reargue those issues already considered when
a party does not like the way the original motion was resolved." In
re Houbigant, Inc., 914 F. Supp. 997, 1001 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
Plaintiff cites no controlling facts or controlling legal principles
that were called to my attention and overlooked in connection with her
initial motions. Accordingly, plaintiff
has failed to meet the stringent standard that would support a
motion for reconsideration.*fn1