The opinion of the court was delivered by: Randolph F. Treece United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
On January 28, 2008, this Court issued a Memorandum Decision and Order (MDO) denying Bradley's Motion to Compel. Dkt. No. 33. The gist of the MDO was that Bradley failed to serve his Demands for Interrogatories and Production in compliance with this District's Local Rule 16.2.*fn1
The manner and the timeliness of service of his Demands did not permit Defendants sufficient time to serve their responses thereto within the discovery period. Nonetheless, prior to the MDO, Defendants served Responses to the Demands for Interrogatories and Production. See generally Dkt. No. 29. However, some of Interrogatories were objected to. Id. at Dkt. Nos. 29-2-4.
Now, Bradley has filed a Motion of Reconsideration of our January 28, 2008 MDO. Dkt. No. 36, Shawn Bradley Affirm., dated Feb. 7, 2008. Defendants oppose this Motion. Dkt. No. 37, Robert D. Cook, Esq., Aff., dated Mar. 5, 2008, & 37-2, Defs.' Mem. of Law.*fn2
Generally, reconsideration of a court's prior decision is warranted only where the moving party demonstrates "(1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and/or (3) the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Bartz v. Agway, Inc., 849 F. Supp. 166, 167 (N.D.N.Y. 1994) (McAvoy, C.J.) (citing Wilson v. Consol. Rail Corp., 815 F. Supp. 585 (N.D.N.Y. 1993); McLaughlin v. New York Governor's Office of Employee Relations, 784 F. Supp. 961, 965 (N.D.N.Y. 1992)); see also Delaney v. Selsky, 899 F. Supp. 923, 925 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (citing Doe v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 864 (1983)). Bradley's Motion fails to allege any of the above grounds for reconsideration. Instead, Bradley provides a plethora of reasons why his Demands for Discovery were not served timely. Although we acknowledge an inmate's difficulty in gaining access to the library, occasional disagreements with library staff, health impairments, and the occasional malfunction of equipment may cause some delay in serving legal papers, individually and collectively these reasons are insufficient to support Bradley's claim that these Demands could not have been served timely within the six month period provided for discovery. Thus, he has not provided any legal grounds that the MDO was granted on clear error or that a manifest injustice occurred. Thus, we are prepared to deny this Motion for the reasons just stated.
But, as we have noted above, Defendants provided Responses to the Interrogatories directed to Defendants Gerard M. Keller, Barry D. Rell, Jr., and James J. Maisenheider. See Dkt. No. 29-2-4. Also, as noted above, some of the Interrogatories were objected to. In other instances, the Responses noted duplication or an overlap with Responses to other sets of Interrogatories. Upon review of those Interrogatories and the objections thereto, we agree with Defendants objections:
(1) Rell's Interrogatories # 9-12 are irrelevant;
(2) Rell's Interrogatory # 15 is privileged;
(3) Rell's Interrogatory # 28 is burdensome and irrelevant;
(4) Rell's Interrogatory # 29 is noted as provided, notwithstanding objections as to relevance;
(5) Keller's Interrogatory # 12 is burdensome and irrelevant;
(6) Keller's Interrogatory # 15 is overly vague and cannot be answered;
(7) Maisenhelder's Interrogatory # 17 is confusing and need not be answered;
We uphold those objections and on these grounds as well, the Motion to Compel, Dkt. No. 28, ...