Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


United States District Court, S.D. New York

March 31, 2004.

BEVERLY RIDDLE, Plaintiff, -against- LIZ CLAIBORNE, INC., et al., Defendants

The opinion of the court was delivered by: HENRY PITMAN, Magistrate Judge


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 circumstances. Page 2


Motions for reargument "are granted when new facts come to light or when it appears that controlling precedents were overlooked." Weissman v. Fruchtman, 658 F. Supp. 547 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). The proponent of such a motion is not supposed to treat the court's initial decision as the opening of a dialogue in which that party may then use [Local Civil Rule 6.3] to advance new facts and theories in response to the court's rulings. The purpose of the rule is "to ensure the finality of decisions and to prevent the practice of a losing party examining a decision and then plugging the gaps of a lost motion with additional matters." Lewis v. New York Telephone, No. 83 Civ. 7129, slip op. at 2, 1986 WL 1441 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) cited in Carolco Pictures Inc. v. Sirota, 700 F. Supp. 169 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
McMahan & Co. v. Donaldson. Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp., 727 F. Supp. 833, 833 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).

  " [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 Page 3 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 Page 4 has failed to meet the stringent standard that would support a motion for reconsideration.*fn1


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.