The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ronald L. Ellis, United States Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff Pem-America, Inc.'s ("Pem-America") motion for reconsideration of this Court's October 31, 2007 Opinion and Order ("October 2007 Opinion") under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Local Rule 6.3. The October 2007 Opinion compelled defendant Sunham Home Fashions, LLC (Sunham) to produce for discovery their joint prosecution and defense agreement with Nancy Lambert, who is a plaintiff in a copyright infringement suit in the Northern District of Illinois against Pem-America.
Pem-America contends that in the October 2007 Opinion, the Court 1) did not address the portion of Pem-America's letter to the Court in which they requested Sunham to produce "all" documents and information sought in their Third Set of Interrogatories and Fourth Set of Document Demands, and 2) overlooked controlling decisions and facts when finding that Sunham had not waived their attorney-client and attorney work product privilege. (Kaplan November 14, 2007 Decl. ¶ 2.)
Sunham contends that Pem-America has failed to overcome the burdens for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Local Rule 6.3 because Pem-America did not "outline the matters or the controlling decisions which it believes the Court overlooked in its Order," nor contend that the outcome of the Court's decision would have differed had the Court not overlooked particular cases or facts. (Sunham Mem. of Law at 6.)
The background is set forth in the Court's October 2007 Opinion.
III. STANDARD FOR RECONSIDERATION
Pem-America may move for reconsideration of the October 2007 Opinion on the basis of "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect ." FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1). Pem-America must outline "the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked." Local Rule 6.3. Reconsideration is merited if Pem-America can "demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion." Eisemann v. Greene, 204 F.3d 393, 395 (2d Cir. 2000) (citing Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., 187 F.R.D. 148, 151 (S.D.N.Y.1999)). The matters must "reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Id. "Local Rule 6.3 is to be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the court." Id.
Pem-America has not overcome the burden necessary for reconsdieration in this matter. The issues brought to the Court's attention have either not been previously addressed by the Court and therefore cannot be reconsidered, or are not substantial enough to alter the conclusion made by the Court in the October 2007 Opinion.
A. Production of All Documents in Pem-America's Third Set of Interrogatories and Fourth Set of Document Demands
Pem-America's first contention in support of their motion for reconsideration is that the Court did not rule on its request for production of all the documents in its Third Set of Interrogatories and Fourth Set of Document Demands, but rather only ruled specifically on the production of Sunham and Lambert's Joint Prosecution and Defense Agreement. (Decl. Of Kaplan ¶2.) This assertion, while factually true, does not meet the standard for reconsideration as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Local Rule 6.3.
In Pem-America's above mentioned interrogatory and document requests, it requested information on whether Sunham agreed to pay, or had paid, legal costs for Lambert's action in Illinois, whether Sunham had in any way paid Lambert for the commencement or maintenance of her action in Illinois, and any documents related to these agreements. (Plf. Notice of Mot., Ex B.) In the last conference before the Court on September 18, 2007, it was the Court's understanding that Sunham had relayed information to Pem-America admitting to the payment of legal expenses for Lambert's Illinois Action and that the remaining issue concerned production of the Joint Prosecution and Defense Agreement. See (Def.'s Revised Responses ...